Does it apply for every other computation? Purely for the computation part?
You can host all kinds of things locally cheaper right now than in the cloud, no? (At least pre memory price hikes.)
It does, of course, come with its downsides like availability/reliability, less convenience, scaling options,..., but purely the computing price - I don't see why it wouldn't be cheaper in the future - at least for some use cases.
Where are you seeing a 5x there? I see a 2x over the last 30 years for PC & Console - which are the expensive platforms to develop for. (If you're AA(A).)
> Just as Anthropic isn’t paying AWS SES $10,000,000 to send 1 email update
How much do you think emails cost? That number is just so far off?
But besides that, running SES is also quite a bit cheaper than SOTA ai models with high demand (and comparatively) no competition. And quite a bit more pressure to make money (soon).
I think it was a figurative example. For what it's worth, $10,000,000 buys you 100 billion (1e11) outbound emails on SES at the sticker price ($0.10/1000 emails). One source puts the number of emails sent worldwide in 2024 at 132 trillion (1.32e14).
How is it the opposite of reality? The commenter exaggerated some numbers, or charitably made a math error, but as far as I know the thrust is correct: AWS is well known for offering discounted rates to high volume customers. In some parlance I hate but will adopt here: the comment is directionally correct.
Do you have any evidence that AWS doesn't offer volume discounts? I have seen plenty of evidence that they do.
Speaking to the subject of this sub-thread, there is pretty good evidence (Anthropic's own pricing page) that Anthropic also offers volume discounts on their API pricing. Five days hence, they have not taken down this language from their platform/API pricing page:
> For higher rate limits or custom pricing arrangements, contact the sales team.
> Volume discounts may be available for high-volume users. These are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
> Enterprise customers can contact sales for custom pricing.
Simon has ignored all of my comments arguing this point. That makes me reconsider his credibility: why won't he provide any evidence to support his assertion, or admit he may be wrong here?
All I'm seeing is they got their hands on the domain, which can be (and was in the past) just part of whatever settlement they agreed on, and the game press spinned that into "Nintendo bought Ryujinx".
> Hasn't DeepSeek's novel training methodology changed all that? If the energy and financial cost for training a model really has drastically dropped, then frequent retraining including new data should become the norm.
Even if training gets way cheaper or even if it stays as expensive but more money gets thrown at it, you'll still run into the issue of having no/less data to train on?
Because you have two parties of HN users that happily flag, which is enough. Those who are Trump supporters and those who just don't want any politics / the discussions surrounding it on HN. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Doesn't seem to be a duplicate, so dang might unflag it and remove the filter if he sees the thread.
While I also agree with the sentiment that it's not the same, I think it's interesting that you use "googling" as a comparison.
Googling and extracting the right information efficiently is clearly a skill, and people do use it in wildly (and often inefficient/bad) ways. That might be less of an issue with your average HN user, but in the real world, people are bad at using Google.
Palword vs Nintendo is not a trademark case but a patent one. People in gaming are notably very much not in love of patents restricting what games can or can't do.
reply