← Back to context Comment by esafak 9 hours ago Hear, hear. Even if the model fits, a few tokens per second make no sense. Time is money too. 6 comments esafak Reply hex4def6 4 hours ago If I can start an agent and be able to walk away for 8 hours, and be confident it's 'smart' enough to complete a task unattended, that's still useful.At 3 tk/s, that's still 100-150 pages of a book, give or take. esafak 3 minutes ago True, that's still faster than a human, but they're not nearly that reliable yet. tempoponet 8 hours ago Maybe for a coding agent, but a daily/weekly report on sensitive info?If it were 2016 and this technology existed but only in 1 t/s, every company would find a way to extract the most leverage out of it. michaellee8 6 hours ago If they figured out it can be this useful in 2016 running 1 t/s, they would make it run at least 20 t/s by 2019 esafak 7 hours ago But it's 2026 and 'secure' (by executive standards) hosted options exist. dabockster 4 hours ago > 'secure' (by executive standards)"Secure" in the sense that they can sue someone after the fact, instead of preventing data from leaking in the first place.
hex4def6 4 hours ago If I can start an agent and be able to walk away for 8 hours, and be confident it's 'smart' enough to complete a task unattended, that's still useful.At 3 tk/s, that's still 100-150 pages of a book, give or take. esafak 3 minutes ago True, that's still faster than a human, but they're not nearly that reliable yet.
esafak 3 minutes ago True, that's still faster than a human, but they're not nearly that reliable yet.
tempoponet 8 hours ago Maybe for a coding agent, but a daily/weekly report on sensitive info?If it were 2016 and this technology existed but only in 1 t/s, every company would find a way to extract the most leverage out of it. michaellee8 6 hours ago If they figured out it can be this useful in 2016 running 1 t/s, they would make it run at least 20 t/s by 2019 esafak 7 hours ago But it's 2026 and 'secure' (by executive standards) hosted options exist. dabockster 4 hours ago > 'secure' (by executive standards)"Secure" in the sense that they can sue someone after the fact, instead of preventing data from leaking in the first place.
michaellee8 6 hours ago If they figured out it can be this useful in 2016 running 1 t/s, they would make it run at least 20 t/s by 2019
esafak 7 hours ago But it's 2026 and 'secure' (by executive standards) hosted options exist. dabockster 4 hours ago > 'secure' (by executive standards)"Secure" in the sense that they can sue someone after the fact, instead of preventing data from leaking in the first place.
dabockster 4 hours ago > 'secure' (by executive standards)"Secure" in the sense that they can sue someone after the fact, instead of preventing data from leaking in the first place.
If I can start an agent and be able to walk away for 8 hours, and be confident it's 'smart' enough to complete a task unattended, that's still useful.
At 3 tk/s, that's still 100-150 pages of a book, give or take.
True, that's still faster than a human, but they're not nearly that reliable yet.
Maybe for a coding agent, but a daily/weekly report on sensitive info?
If it were 2016 and this technology existed but only in 1 t/s, every company would find a way to extract the most leverage out of it.
If they figured out it can be this useful in 2016 running 1 t/s, they would make it run at least 20 t/s by 2019
But it's 2026 and 'secure' (by executive standards) hosted options exist.
> 'secure' (by executive standards)
"Secure" in the sense that they can sue someone after the fact, instead of preventing data from leaking in the first place.