← Back to context

Comment by asadotzler

6 days ago

You trust their PR statements?

It's not a PR statement, it's a change in price. Literally putting money where the mouth is.

  • Or they are trying to gobble up market share because Anthropic has been much better than OpenAI

    • Providers are exceptionally easy to switch. There's no moat for enterprise-level usage. There's no "market share" to gobble up because I can change a line in my config, run the eval suite, and switch immediately to another provider.

      This is marginally less true for embedding models and things you've fine-tuned, but only marginally.

  • o3 probably used to have a HUGE profit margin on inference, so I'd say it's unclear how much optimo was done;

    • I find it pretty plausible they got an 80% speedup just by making optimized kernels for everything. Even when GPUs say they're being 100% utilized, there are so many improvements to be made, like:

      - Carefully interleaving shared memory loading with computation, and the whole kernel with global memory loading.

      - Warp shuffling for softmax.

      - Avoiding memory access conflicts in matrix multiplication.

      I'm sure the guys at ClosedAI have many more optimizations they've implemented ;). They're probably eventually going to design their own chips or use photonic chips for lower energy costs, but there's still a lot of gains to be made in the software.

      1 reply →

Seems more likely to me then them deciding to take a sizable loss on inference by dropping prices by 80% for no reason.

Optimizing serving isn't unlikely: all of the big AI vendors keep finding new efficiencies, it's been an ongoing trend over the past two years.

  • This is my sense as well. You dont drop 80% on a random Tuesday based on scale, you do it with an explicit goal to get market share at the expense of $$.