←back to thread

600 points antirez | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dakiol ◴[] No.44625484[source]
> Gemini 2.5 PRO | Claude Opus 4

Whether it's vibe coding, agentic coding, or copy pasting from the web interface to your editor, it's still sad to see the normalization of private (i.e., paid) LLM models. I like the progress that LLMs introduce and I see them as a powerful tool, but I cannot understand how programmers (whether complete nobodies or popular figures) dont mind adding a strong dependency on a third party in order to keep programming. Programming used to be (and still is, to a large extent) an activity that can be done with open and free tools. I am afraid that in a few years, that will no longer be possible (as in most programmers will be so tied to a paid LLM, that not using them would be like not using an IDE or vim nowadays), since everyone is using private LLMs. The excuse "but you earn six figures, what' $200/month to you?" doesn't really capture the issue here.

replies(46): >>44625521 #>>44625545 #>>44625564 #>>44625827 #>>44625858 #>>44625864 #>>44625902 #>>44625949 #>>44626014 #>>44626067 #>>44626198 #>>44626312 #>>44626378 #>>44626479 #>>44626511 #>>44626543 #>>44626556 #>>44626981 #>>44627197 #>>44627415 #>>44627574 #>>44627684 #>>44627879 #>>44628044 #>>44628982 #>>44629019 #>>44629132 #>>44629916 #>>44630173 #>>44630178 #>>44630270 #>>44630351 #>>44630576 #>>44630808 #>>44630939 #>>44631290 #>>44632110 #>>44632489 #>>44632790 #>>44632809 #>>44633267 #>>44633559 #>>44633756 #>>44634841 #>>44635028 #>>44636374 #
simonw ◴[] No.44626556[source]
The models I can run locally aren't as good yet, and are way more expensive to operate.

Once it becomes economical to run a Claude 4 class model locally you'll see a lot more people doing that.

The closest you can get right now might be Kimi K2 on a pair of 512GB Mac Studios, at a cost of about $20,000.

replies(12): >>44627184 #>>44627617 #>>44627695 #>>44627852 #>>44628143 #>>44631034 #>>44631098 #>>44631352 #>>44631995 #>>44632684 #>>44633226 #>>44644288 #
zer00eyz ◴[] No.44627695[source]
> Once it becomes economical to run a Claude 4 class model locally you'll see a lot more people doing that.

Historically these sorts of things happened because of Moores law. Moores law is dead. For a while we have scaled on the back of "more cores", and process shrink. It looks like we hit the wall again.

We seem to be near the limit of scaling (physics) we're not seeing a lot in clock (some but not enough), and IPC is flat. We are also having power (density) and cooling (air wont cut it any more) issues.

The requirements to run something like claud 4 local aren't going to make it to house hold consumers any time soon. Simply put the very top end of consumer PC's looks like 10 year old server hardware, and very few people are running that because there isn't a need.

The only way we're going to see better models locally is if there is work (research, engineering) put into it. To be blunt that isnt really happening, because Fb/MS/Google are scaling in the only way they know how. Throw money at it to capture and dominate the market, lock out the innovators from your API and then milk the consumer however you can. Smaller, and local is antithetical to this business model.

Hoping for the innovation that gives you a moat, that makes you the next IBM isnt the best way to run a business.

Based on how often Google cancels projects, based on how often the things Zuck swear are "next" face plant (metaverse) one should not have a lot of hope about AI>

replies(3): >>44627840 #>>44628024 #>>44630780 #
1. mleo ◴[] No.44628024[source]
Why wouldn’t 3rd party hardware vendors continue to work on reducing costs of running models locally? If there is a market opportunity for someone to make money, it will be filled. Just because the cloud vendors don’t develop hardware someone will. Apple has vested interest in making hardware to run better models locally, for example.
replies(1): >>44629088 #
2. zer00eyz ◴[] No.44629088[source]
> Why wouldn’t 3rd party hardware vendors continue to work on reducing costs of running models locally?

Every one wants this to happen they are all trying but...

EUV, what has gotten us down to 3nm and less is HARD. Reduction in chip size has lead to increases in density and lower costs. But now yields are DOWN and the design concessions to make the processes work are hurting costs and performance. There are a lot of hopes and prayers in the 1.8 nodes but things look grim.

Power is a massive problem for everyone. It is a MASSIVE a problem IN the data center and it is a problem for GPU's at home. Considering that locally is a PHONE for most people it's an even bigger problem. With all this power comes cooling issues. The industry is starting to look at all sorts of interesting ways to move heat away from cores... ones that don't involve air.

Design has hit a wall as well. If you look at NVIDIA's latest offering its IPC, (thats Instructions Per Clock cycle) you will find they are flat. The only gains between the latest generation and previous have come from small frequency upticks. These gains came from using "more power!!!", and thats a problem because...

Memory is a problem. There is a reason that the chips for GPU's are soldered on to the boards next to the processors. There is a reason that laptops have them soldered on too. CAMM try's to fix some of this but the results are, to say the least, disappointing thus far.

All of this has been hitting cpu's slowly, but we have also had the luxury of "more cores" to throw at things. If you go back 10-15 years a top end server is about the same as a top end desktop today (core count, single core perf). Because of all of the above issues I don't think you are going to get 700+ core consumer desktops in a decade (current high end for server CPU)... because of power, costs etc.

Unless we see some foundational breakthrough in hardware (it could happen), you wont see the normal generational lift in performance that you have in the past (and I would argue that we already haven't been seeing that). Someone is going to have to make MAJOR investments in the software side, and there is NO MOAT by doing so. Simply put it's a bad investment... and if we can't lower the cost of compute (and it looks like we can't) its going to be hard for small players to get in and innovate.

It's likely you're seeing a very real wall.