this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
108 points (94.3% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3764 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is also a commercial aspect...
Bigger models are more expensive to train and serve..
Inference is currently insanely profitable if you have the hardware and the automation in place to support and serve it. At that point, it's a money printing machine, and you want to squeeze as much out of it as you can.
While training new models is extremely expensive, and serving them probably makes less profit (at least initially).
Having an external brake applied to the frontier labs is likely good for their bottom line, while increasing hype and directing customers' annoyance away from them.
It's likely only a temporary benefit, though. The dragon will catch up and apply more pressure, both on inference price and capabilities.
Can you cite your source on the claim that "inference is currently insanely profitable"? Everything I read suggests that openai and anthropic lose money on their plans.
My caveats were clearly stated... After capital expenditure, it's just operational costs, where electricity & cooling are the big ones.
At that point, it is insanely profitable to serve. The cheap API prices on open weights models hints at the profit margins involved in the US (the frontier labs and hyperscalers don't open their books for us), unsurprisingly)
Therefore, the longer they can serve existing and lower cost models at the current rates, the better for their bottom line. It's just common sense in business.
It doesn't mean the company as a whole is profitable. I expect we'll see turmoil in the coming months and years, and the prize will be compute capacity, with electricity & cooling options.
You can't just write off capital expenditure though. The hardware, even for "effecient" MOE inference is still very expensive to buy, house, run, and cool. Even assuming open-weight model serving at $0 r&d for the models themselves, mixing high-prefill workloads doesn't batch well with decode heavy concurrency (or other prefill-heavy jobs). The moment you do anything nontrivial you start running into very complicated architectural problems to efficiently solve at scale.
Hardware that is useful for 5-10 years at most, plus development and support for the inference workflows, doesn't leave a lot of margin on the table.
My gut, along with basically everything I read, suggests that not most (even pure inference) shops are not profitable and are still floating on loans or vc money.
If you assume they are unprofitable, the Q only becomes whether they are more or less unprofitable by serving the older models for longer.
At 10 years lifetime, it's sounding like the hardware costs as much to buy as it does to run - not factoring in time value of money...