"Based on this framework, we have achieved high-throughput, low-latency large-scale inference services for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. Currently, the service throughput of a single cluster is 155 trillion tokens/day, and the overall revenue is $38 per card per hour (at off-peak pricing)"
I would be surprised if there was such a glut of undifferentiated inference providers for open models otherwise[0]. Possibly just people trying to minimize the loss from already-committed capital, but I don't see AWS and DO selling inference via OpenRouter unless they're making a decent profit from it.
Fascinating site. Thanks for linking. However note if you change to "open router" pricing in some cases even B200 which is ~2y old has negative margin (and AFAIK ppl are using longer amortization than 2y - I do not know how cost are calculated here though).
I think we need to collectively get a grip on statements like this.
There is no reason to think inference can or will remain profitable even if you assume pure-play inference providers who don't do any model training. Serving an LLM isn't child's play but it's also not so hard as to count as a moat. Inferencing is:
1. Selling a largely undifferentiated product.
2. Into a highly competitive market.
3. To customers who are primarily sensitive to price.
Industries like this have always existed and in the modern era tend to have margins of about 3% to 5%. Any level of margin higher than that gets competed into the ground.
If you want to claim inference is highly profitable in general, you're going to have to answer why it won't end up like supermarkets or airlines, both of which have bigger moats than inference.
The other problem with this analysis is obviously that you can't just stop training models. Even if you don't care about improving capability or performance, the knowledge in their weights gets stale. Cost of inferencing has to take into account the ongoing cost of training, you can't cleanly split one from the other.
"If you want to claim inference is highly profitable in general, you're going to have to answer why it won't end up like supermarkets or airlines, both of which have bigger moats than inference."
- I don't... "inference is profitable" is as of now. No one knows future, neither have I commented anything on it.
Amen. AI boosters look at currently high profit margins on inference and blindly accept claims that these inference profit margins will continue. Of course those margins depend on historically massive R&D spend on training. The moment that training stops, AI returns to a commodity market and the inference profits end. Big labs are trying as hard as possible to keep the gravy train running but they can all see it won't last forever, hence the rush for IPO & regulating away open models.
Boosters are right that AI is a historically impactful product, but big labs will be unable to meaningfully profit from ushering in the AI era just like Netscape failed despite ushering in the internet era.
>AI boosters look at currently high profit margins on inference
Name a company with a currently high profit margin on inference. I can't.
Investors want to invest in OpenAI and Anthropic because they hope that they will create AI that is much much more powerful than the AI they have now. The fact that they already have a substantial revenue stream helps, but it helps mainly by lending credibility to the claim that they might create something much much more powerful.
Inference will continue to be profitable while we don't have enough compute in the world to serve the demand we have. Also, I don't see why it's a problem that the end game for inference of open models will be relatively low, ie 5% or so. You can have a huge industry running on these margins. Though I would note that hyperscalers have been selling compute commodities with a high margin for a long time.
Demand is elastic, there's no fixed pool of it. What determines profitability isn't merely supply constraints but how much margin your competitors are willing to accept, more or less.
It's not a huge problem for users but if margins are low it's a huge problem for the debt funded datacenter buildout. It's just pure finance at that point, about whether those GPUs can generate enough yield to beat deprecation and financing costs.
The big clouds generally don't sell compute at high margins. The margins differ a lot between services. Services like core VMs and object storage are usually low margin or even break even. Where they make the money is things where they've got proprietary software with competitive advantage, like managed scalable forks of Postgres, or egress charges that are there to create lockin. Managed DBs are pure SaaS and can generate SaaS like margins.
I think hardware scarcity plays a part in inference margins. They would get squeezed super quickly if anyone who wanted could just build an inference cluster, but that's not currently the case.
I would assume hardware production has been ramping up significantly and it's more of a temporary supply chain issue though. While it could last multiple years, that's certainly not long enough for the hyperscalers to get a return on investment. Obviously more complicated than this, but still... I'm not buying.
We're also starting to see efficiency gains, so we might meet halfway.
It's really refreshing to put some cold hard numbers on this stuff, hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments. Amortized cost of owning a DC full of GPUs is far less than $38/card/hr
Not to say it can't still be a bubble, just that there is legitimately profit to be had and perhaps some sustainable equilibrium in the future.
Today. As new suppy comes online and demand levels off, that 38$ will shrink. Absent monopolies, the margin will shrink to a sliver. That is the danger of open source models. They destroy monopolies and shrink margins.
> That is the danger of open source models. They destroy monopolies and shrink margins.
It's unclear that the leading open-source models could exist without having distilled the frontier models. If that's true, the "danger" is that these upstream models don't get built any more (because of the tremendous cost), and we end up just optimizing what we have. Also unclear whether this would be a net win or loss for humanity.
The tech is at the point where synthetic data is almost high enough quality to train further models on, AND there are so many human users of cloud AI, that their usage can be gathered and trained upon (it's human generated and used in real world situations, so, it is of a good enough quality). The cat is fully out of the bag.
Anthropic is zooming to $100 billion in annualized revenue.
The tremendous cost is matched by the tremendous business output.
In the span of less than five years, starting from their first $1 of revenue, Anthropic + OpenAI will have produced businesses doing at least $150 billion in combined sales. The demand isn't reducing at present, it's climbing, they can't come close to servicing the total demand for their frontier models.
SAP is under $40 billion in annualized revenue. They're 54 years old.
If SAP sold $1 bills for $0.50, they too could rapidly outpace Anthro/OAI's growth. And when sane minds ask about profits or a defensive moat, the response is "but look at our revenue bro".
The same exact thing was endlessly claimed about Uber. They were guaranteed to die. They were selling rides for less than they cost. Uber was a commodity app anybody could MVP in a weekend.
Market captured. Whoops.
Uber now: $55b in sales, $6.7b in op income. They won.
And to be clear, OpenAI can easily permanently subsidize a fake low cost for their LLMs if they get off their asses and attach a monster ad network to GPT already. They're years behind where they should have already been with ads, the easy money made it so they didn't have to think about it. If they miscalculate the timing on switching over from easy money (market) to ads (also easy money) it could certainly kill them.
OpenAI can knock out a lot of competition by building the largest ad network, then undercutting the cost that consumers see. The margins in ads make that possible. Google already knows how that works, they're doing the same thing right now.
I'd rather have the OpenAI + consumer base + ads position, than being Anthropic. China is a far, far larger threat to Anthropic over time. OpenAI is building a service business more comparable to what Google does. Chinese models don't actually threaten either OpenAI or Google insofar as their positions are user capture based, whereas constantly improving Chinese models are a never-ending threat to Anthropic.
> The same exact thing was endlessly claimed about Uber. They were guaranteed to die. They were selling rides for less than they cost.
Lots of companies have used this strategy. And many of them have indeed died. Uber filled a void left by bad public transportation and a lackluster cab system. The higher prices (so they can turn a profit) are still worth it to some.
> OpenAI can knock out a lot of competition by building the largest ad network, then undercutting the cost that consumers see. The margins in ads make that possible. Google already knows how that works, they're doing the same thing right now.
And you think OpenAI can compete here? If LLM's end up being yet another ad funded platform, I have a hard time believing Anthropic or OpenAI will outperform Google here. Maybe if one of them strike a deal with Apple, or get bought by them. Otherwise, ads are Google's bread & butter. And, they own Android.
That would depend on whether you are a user/customer or an investor/owner in AI. At the moment, nearly everyone is on the investor/owner side. The entire western world has doubled down on AI becoming the most popular product since the invention of fire. If it turns out that fire 2.0 cannot be patented/copyrighted/licensed for insane profits, those dollars disappear.
The people who own these companies have more money than they, their families, and their extended families can spend for generations. None of them have to work a day in their life no matter what happens to these companies.
Same with a lot of their investors, who will be just fine without the "insane profits" they hope for.
I'm not worried about their welfare, and won't shed a tear if their companies collapse.
It isn't just those who own stock. If the AI bubble bursts violently it will impact literally everyone. Everyone who owns indexed stocks. Everyone who owns tech stocks. Everyone with a variable rate mortgage. Everyone with a job. The AI spend is now so much of the western economic system that every one of us has skin in the game. At least on the risk side.
With this new data at hand, I have to wonder how profitable would it be for the investors.
The cost of amortising a datcenter, the gpus, the engineering costs attached all to produce inference.
At how much percentage of its inference would it be profitable (if it does), how much returns would it make over the long term and what would be the profit of those inferences/ profit-revenue and how that compares to other industries.
Are there any statistics which show this. Also how efficient token inference has gotten over time?
Until the Chinese stuff came online I was completely convinced this is just a bubble waiting to pop and nothing will come of this tech due to its absurd costs. The Chinese stuff changed this picture massively. I'm daily driving DeepSeek 4.1 flash (at API prices) and every now and then I give Opus 5.5 a try and don't notice anything missing for me.
My workflow is one where I am heavily involved in the process and I don't like giving the agent too much autonomy + I need to follow along. Opus 5.5 speak is still cause aneurysms for my brain. It also has this vibe to its prose... like it's looking down on me. This is Prolly my bias speaking though.
> I'm daily driving DeepSeek 4.1 flash (at API prices) and every now and then I give Opus 5.5 a try and don't notice anything missing for me.
I was doing the same (along with GLM 5.3 Flash) for months, and then gave Claude Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort a try. The difference was like night and day. Where both DeepSeek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash kept making mistakes and would have to do a bunch of iterations to find and fix them, Claude Sonnet 5.5 just did it right on the first try.
In my experience, while DeepSeek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash are a lot cheaper per token, they're just as or maybe even more expensive when you factor in all the extra tokens that are need to troubleshoot and fix their mistakes -- and even more expensive if I factor in my own time wasted doing the same, not to mention the frustration of having to deal with that.
DeepSeek 4.1 Flash also hallucinates a lot.[1]
I'm hoping all this improves with time, and the gap between the competent frontier models and open weight models narrows.
Same for me. The cheap Claude subscription is just so much cheaper. Never had to buy more deepseek tokens for months (August), because Sonnet 5.5 is good enough
There's a trillion plus dollars (per year) of ad business up for grabs in the LLM era.
Facebook is toast, sooner than later, as a business. Whatever gradually replaces/upgrades that quasi dead friends network, will be premised on AI (Zuck apparently thinks it's at least in part personal agents). In the present Meta still has a $228 billion ad business that is hyper profitable.
Google + Meta = ~$650 billion hyper margin ad business. OpenAI, aka LLM as a service for the masses, is going to want to take as much of that as they can. OpenAI's active user base comes at an attention cost to the other mega services like FB or Google Search, and ultimately that attention is worth ad dollars. The question is only whether OpenAI can take it, not whether it's there at all or high value. And of course there's no guarantee that it'll be ChatGPT upon which the next great ad network is built, it will be some AI-centric business however, and likely heavily involving LLMs.
Google's operating income last quarter was $40 billion. If OpenAI fails to take the mass market + ad tandem, then Google will more likely retain their position. The solution to the cost is already well understood by eg Google: the masses don't need tip of the frontier AI capabilities, and relying on Nvidia's extremely over-priced GPUs is a dumb business model. The biggest threat to OpenAI right now is Nvidia's margins, not China. Google's focus has been on high quality cheaper AI systems for a reason: they're looking to serve billions of people that have no use for what the bleeding edge offers vs a fast + good mid-tier. Google can do that in a highly profitable way.
What is that CPM? My CPM in ChatGPT is lower than in Google. CPM is a bad metric, how much does 1 conversion cost? You can charge me $100 per ad all day, as long as every showing results in a $1000 sale.
A billion users and the extreme cost of infrastructure to compete are a gigantic moat.
You can't get the first and you can't get the money for the second. Nobody is going to give you $100 billion to underwrite the cost of competing with GPT at a one billion user scale (or even a 100 million user scale). The easy money is already drying up, the field is set, and you will not be able to get anybody to give you a huge check to attempt to chase OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, China. That's already over. No VCs will fund you on this particular business pursuit.
You couldn't meaningfully compete with OpenAI and Anthropic if you wanted to. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
There's a trillion dollar valuation waiting for you. What's up?
Even nation-state pockets Microsoft can't compete. If there were no moat, Microsoft would have their own GPT killer, and GPT would be dead. Microsoft has $160 billion per year in op income. They can freely afford to spend more than the entire EU (is willing to) on AI matters if it makes sense. They can't compete no matter how much they spend and they know it.
Google has nation-state money. They have chips. They have software developers by the zillions. They have a frontier or very near frontier model in Gemini / Argon. They invented a lot of the category. They can't kill GPT. I repeat, no matter what Google has thrown at the matter, they have failed to kill or stop GPT.
Google can't beat them. Microsoft can't beat them. China's models haven't stopped them (DeepSeek was supposed to kill them years ago; Kimi was supposed to kill them).
That's one helluva non-moat. They must just be really lucky.
You might as well claim Coca Cola has no moat because it's just sugar water. Brand at scale is a large moat. People use what they know unless you severely disrupt them. They're being taught to use GPT, they know GPT, and so long as OpenAI doesn't screw it all up, people will just keep using it. To say nothing of the fact that GPT still has one of the elite frontier models, so you also still have to compete with them on quality.
> My workflow is one where I am heavily involved in the process and I don't like giving the agent too much autonomy
For such workflows it barely matters which of a dozen models gets used.
Whereas if you're handing off all dev and no longer reading code, just making CTO-level architecture decisions, then there are only 2~3 models right now worth using, none cheap.
> Whereas if you're handing off all dev and no longer reading code, just making CTO-level architecture decisions, then there are only 2~3 models right now worth using, none cheap.
I use frontier models every day and night, but not sure if the described approach is possible with any of them right now. Models still make stupid mistakes and people who do not read the code produced are bound for surprising discoveries in their codebase. Not trying to downplay the effectiveness of LLM-assisted coding and all that, but it's hard to imagine how much stupid shit i would've committed if I was not reading their output.
Yeah, I have extensive collection of prompts for reviews and usually run 3-5 (automated) review takes on large sets of changes before doing eyeball reviews. Auto reviews indeed find many obvious bugs, but they usually slip through things that are less
obviously stupid but are bad conceptually, for example, using persistence / queue / repository in a place where set of pure functions would be enough; or vice-versa, not persisting the state that must be persisted for reasons, etc.
Another problem is that review changes can easily introduce new issues, so my review prompts go like that: if you find outright shit, fix it right away, but if you have slightest concern, just write your ideas and suggestions in the review and let me decide then. I try from time to time to omit the "slightest concern" part and make agent do all the shit it wants, and usually end up reverting those changes.
But as the sibling comment said, not all code needs quality and indeed I skip some code too, like user
playwright journeys -- I only need one auto review pass to verify they indeed test things according to a doc, and I'm fine not reading them. Not all code like that though, some stuff would wreck havoc later if its not looked at.
I can't read the original Chinese text, but if it's revenue, then you still can't say anything about profitability. Housing and powering one GPU should be way less than $38 per hour, so there should be a profit on inference. If that profit can cover training new models we don't know, but it would appear to not be the case.
For the past year or two I think it has generally been agreed that inference is profitable, but the LLM business as a whole is not.
Consumer get the cheaper energy, while industry normally get the twice as expensive energy.
But for AI/Datacenters, there is a exception and they get the cheaper consumer level energy.
You need to take in account that the way China taxes is not the same as here in the West. And a lot more is put on the local governments regarding generating their own revenue (why there was so much building in China because those projects funded local government). A bit of a side topic lol. Its not so simple as they are making a loss on something because how its structured.
AI gets the cheaper tariffs then the rest of the industry, that is a fact. They simply have less energy profits on the AI energy. Now if you consider that subsidized or not, ... in both cases China is still making a profit.
What is overlooked is the massive amount of energy generation that China has and still keeps expanding. And that is a direct reflection upon why the prices for industry and consumers are so cheap. This buildout ironically had nothing to do with AI but was more about lower energy = cheaper industry production ... and a lot of buildout was also to build more independence from energy imports. They are not just throwing solar and wind turbines around like candy, the amount of reactors constructed and still under construction, ...
> China currently has 36 to 38 nuclear reactors under construction, maintaining the largest nuclear buildout in the world and accounting for roughly half of all global nuclear plant construction
So yea ... The AI in the west have a issue because it really does not matter if you cut China from Nvidia GPUs or advanced nodes, they compensate on the power level.
Edit: And a little extra, the irony is here in the West building nuclear is expensive as hell because we barely do one or two at the time. With a lot of lost expertise. China doing tons of them non-stop cuts down on the costs a lot.
It's not particularly surprising. China wants people to use electricity. Germany wants people to use gas/oil. The rate of electrification in respective country reflects that choice.
I don't think that the steering effect (away from electricity) on private people is intended. It's intended to keep industry in the country. Makes sense, but still, it feels unfair as a private person.
At similar prices and 1/4th or whatever the average salary, meaning the average person has to use a lot less energy, or spend a larger % of their budget on it
I'm not sure how much you pay in USA. But I live in Beijing, where the residential electricity price is about 0.5 RMB per kWh, roughly 0.0749 USD.
China's electricity pricing involves cross-subsidies. Residential and agricultural users pay the lowest rates, which are generally below the cost of supply. Commercial and industrial users pay more and contribute the most of grid revenue.
Prices vary by region: commercial electricity can approach 1 RMB (0.15USD) in Beijing, but the national average is about 0.67 RMB (0.1USD), while industrial electricity averages around 0.63 RMB nationally.
In my state in the US, they started differentiating between a "supply" rate, as in who generated your electricity, versus a "delivery" rate, or who delivered the electricity. That way they can market the supply rates to you and charge you on delivery additionally.
Would that be due to the size of the models from DeepSeek or perhaps only for their distilled models? If it's for general purpose models that would crash the valuation of Anthropic and OpenAI, both who are struggling with profitabilitet to say the least.
Who said they need to distill anything? Deepseek is the most popular chinese model getting trillions of input tokens a day that have no ZDR availability. They specifically tell you that part of the deal is that they get your data to use however they want (atleast they're honest).
This idea that Deepseek needed to distil their way to success is nonsense. Its a great narrative for OpenAI and Anthropic to spread because Americans have been brainwashed for two decades into dealing with their own inadequacies by blaming things on scary asians stealing things.
In reality China is outworking and lapping most American companies. They produce 10 EEs to every 1 America produces. They are simply harder workers.
The West is cooked because we're too lazy to work hard and we'd rather make up stories about boogeyman who are stealing from us. The only thing we're good at now is killing people who economically challenge us.
DeepSeek's API used to (does still?) route your requests directly to Claude Fable[1]. Those were provably Claude Fable's responses being returned by the DeepSeek API. This was months after Anthropic accused them of distillation of Claude at scale[2].
Them provably distilling after being accused of distilling strongly indicates that... that's what they do. To spin a story of them not doing that (because why would they, with their superior talent and all) doesn't seem very reality conform.
The models are impressive enough as is (considering resource constraints and difference in CapEx) despite being heavily distilled from western frontier models. No need to pretend that they're not.
You really cited a tech politics person, and Anthropic... The poltical AI people are the exact type of cope distributors I complained about above.
I think the more reasonable explanation is this is totally made up. Notice how they use examples concerning "cyber and bio" notice how the examples are politically loaded subjects that are hyper relevant to proposed AI dangers and why we need to protect western AI companies with anti-competitive regulations?
Oh no!!! The scary asians are distilling our models, but they only want the scary things!!! They want to hurt you!! We better stop the scary asians!!!
> I think the more reasonable explanation is this is totally made up.
Based on what? None of the accused companies have ever denied Anthropic's accusations. And here you are confidently claiming it all to be made it. How much of a reputational hit to one's honesty do you think it carries to completely fabricate someone doing something, when they can just publicly disagree and disprove you? First thing DeepSeek, Moonshot, etc. would do if they hadn't would be to make a press statement calling out Anthropic for their lies.
DeepSeek routing to Fable was corroborated by many independent sources... since... everyone was able to just try it out and see it for themselves.
> Oh no!!! The scary asians are distilling our models, but they only want the scary things!!!
The straw man you're mocking doesn't exist. Non-Chinese labs are also distilling frontier models of their competitors. Elon testified in court that Grok was trained on ChatGPT outputs. And why would they not? It produces objectively better models.
When did I say everything is a grand conspiracy? This whole thing where centrists normies just call anyone who believes something outside their center comfort zone a conspiracy theorist is mega obnoxious.
You need better media literacy.
You cant just make up a reality where none of these companies have denied distillation.
The scary asians are going to get you, watch out! Your government is going to eventually tell you that we need kill a bunch of them too because they're so scary. Probably soonish. You're going to fall for it because you believe anything you're told.
You are postulating an organised psyop, where OpenAI and Anthropic are publicly lying about Chinese labs to paint an image of, in your words: "Oh no!!! The scary asians are distilling our models, but they only want the scary things!!!"
These lies are then further supported publicly my western media, random people on twitter, western governments, etc., all to paint China as an evil force that must be united against. Again, in your words "Your government is going to eventually tell you that we need kill a bunch of them too because they're so scary."
And you have dozens of independent parties pushing that same lie to that end and for that purpose? Sure, that's what the New York Times and CNBC must deeply want too. When CNBC writes that they've reached out for comments to the accused companies, but received no responses, they must be lying as well?
It shouldn't be hard for you to demonstrate DeepSeek denying it. Please, go ahead, link to a statement. China's foreign ministry has denied Chinese labs distilling, and, in the same statement accused US labs of distilling from Chinese models. Now that's a very trustworthy claim.
I call it a conspiracy theory because it's a conspiracy theory. Some conspiracies are true, but this one is not. Distilling is both trivially simple and produces objectively better models. Plenty of evidence points to that practice. But in your mind the labs in China are just morally too upstanding in engage in such lowly tactics to create better models, despite the evidence. And it's convenient that the evidence can be explained away by claiming it to be a psyop to paint Chinese as evil.
Despite being "corroborated by independent sources," it was impossible - because deepseek has a higher TPS, can return logits and reveals thinking. Distillation happens asynchronously.
DeepSeek's Anthropic compatible endpoint doesn't return logits. The accusation is that requests to api.deepseek.com/anthropic coming from Claude Code or OpenCode just replayed Claude's responses sometimes. The clients would have just happily consumed the responses, as they were already meant to be Anthropic compatible. And yeah, TPS and the response-distribution were incredibly different between DeepSeek and Claude models, which is exactly why people noticed.
Multi-turn conversations have much more entropy than one-shot responses, making it more useful to do synchronous distillation.
So people were getting deepseek responses with long waits and no thinking traces? That would be easy to prove, we'd get more than just claims from interested entities.
Deepseek Harness lets you opt out of your data being used for training. Perhaps they're lying, but if so I'd have expected someone to point it out and win internet points for exposing false promises. I leave mine opted in since I don't have PII to worry about.
I think what he said was that 10 months of inference paid for the hardware it runs on (which may have a lifetime of a few years). I don't think he mentioned training/development cost.
I think it’s pretty clear from the cherry picked numbers at Anthropic.
Demand is the issue. Demand only spikes with a sota model release then in drops back down to unprofitable levels when factoring in training a new model and build out.
So your stuck in an unprofitable cycle of losing revenue when your not releasing sotas but losing profit when you are.
This goes back to googles original memo “there is no moat”.
Where in you can’t stop training sotas because you’ll lose customers to the next inference model above you instantly.
Google has seemingly defeated this by finding models cheap and good enough for their existing platforms resulting in a moat of distribution. Something OpenAI and Anthropic seems to lack.
> hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments.
I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while (I'm sure not all user accounts, but in aggregate).
The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads.
This is why the open source models are such a threat if they become good enough - it will destroy the business model of just providing raw chat/intelligence.
Arguably that's also why a few of these providers are trying to diversify into whole-platform approaches rather than just relying on having their whole thing be a great model.
I don't think so. The number of comments I see from people talking about AI, there are plenty who still think the price is going to shoot up. Some even talk this way about models you can run locally on high end yet still consumer level hardware.
I think the more someone works with AI the more likely they realize that inference does not have to be sold at a loss, but many people's AI knowledge seems quite dated and it sounds almost like it becomes a convenient conspiracy theory for some, a way to convince themselves that the market changes that are already happening a temporary (and I don't mean in a Jevon's paradox sort of way, but that companies will go away from AI).
I suspect a lot of this is fueled by a few stories of companies who went all in on spending as much as possible on AI and then begun to walk that back, without realizing that was more about bad incentives and over promises of what AI could do (especially 1/2 model generations ago). Some also confuse running the SotA models at the fullest capacity costing more and more with a given problem costing more and more to solve, not realizing that the cost per problems is trending down but newer and larger problems can be solved for even more, so the costs at the top are rising despite falling prices. Also things like the subscriptions getting more expensive, though how much of that is because developers are doing far more than they were 6 or 12 months ago (and in some cases there was subsidization that is going away). And maybe a bit with the free models starting to not be upgraded or the harnesses getting worse performance of lowered free limits.
Nobody meets expectations of a 2 trillion dollar IPO selling a fungible commodity like tokens for old models.
And that's the rub - it doesn't matter if inference is profitable, the US labs have promised the whole kitchen sink, and taken serious investment on that pitch. They won't make it back in a cut-throat market for inference. They have to continue pitching the idea that only their models are worth using, for quality/safety/performance/etc reasons.
Which means continuing to develop and release new models. At huge expense.
Side note - while deepseek seems to be doing fine, I'll note that the emphasis on cost effectiveness is very much not a thing for the US labs right now... and it was for non-us labs. I'd be quite interested in knowing if anthropic is pulling in the same returns, or what the margin on their subscription plans actually is.
---
I'm already seeing this directly at work - lots of devs still happily use claude for development, but the products we're making aren't. They'll use kimi, glm, gpt-oss, etc... basically - if cloudflare is hosting it, we're exploring it (mainly for contractual/security reasons): https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers-ai/models/.
Because we are price sensitive, and we already have to do all the work of creating very robust evaluation frameworks for our products, so we might as well choose the cheapest model that meets our standards.
whiiiiich is why we're seeing things like Haiku and gpt-luna priced down near the open models at ~.10/mm in, ~.50/mm out. They've been forced to cut prices to keep commercial customers on their cheaper models instead of moving away.
This will continue. If inference is profitable and easy, prices will continue to erode. Go browse openrouter, plenty of providers happy to undercut the competition. Bigger shops with auditing requirements will avoid them, but smaller ones won't.
> Which means continuing to develop and release new models. At huge expense.
I guess my question is when do we say a model is "good enough"? For my use cases Opus 5.5 feels as if it is exactly at that point. And at that point of course one of the main factors I will evaluate against is price. So far I am happy with my (heavily subsidized) subscription, but if the time comes, I'll happily switch the inference API any of my agents are calling. So far I have no big lock in on any providers.
I know this gets a lot of flak because it ended up being obviously incorrect for consumer markets.
But the under-reported corellary of this is that a TON of industries essentially operate on hardware right out of that time period (or slightly after, circa 2000s)
banking
Insurance
Healthcare
Gov
retail
Transportation
etc...
Hell, I was writing code to run on IBMs Z/arch as recently as 2021 for banks with mainframes deployed around 2004. They were just then finally considering an upgrade to the later models.
Because again - I think lots of businesses are already taking a good look at models well off the "cutting edge" because they're good enough for what that business is trying to do. They're already there.
If you're doing categorization, tagging, form-filling, customer support routing, etc... you don't need anywhere close to cutting edge expensive models.
Hell - Jev being so popular is basically exactly that group going "what's the cheapest way we can make this decision".
Meanwhile, there are plenty of spaces where you still want real model improvement. But a lot of traditional business was basically process and paper pushing. You don't need a Phd level model for that, you need an intern level model.
---
But that's the trap for the large providers - intern level models are cheap and easily available with current open weights. It's going to be a very tight market, and margins will go down to essentially the floor (especially once we exit the current constrained-compute market).
Somewhat ironically - the technology itself makes switching costs basically zero. It's not just that there's no big lock in, AI is like an anti-moat. It actively fills in and paves over whatever moat you might have for price conscious customers.
I think we share the same view here, which I think is most widely discussed as "AI capability overhang". Like you also said, a large, growing amount (digital) tasks can already be completed reliably with existing models. For those - this was my point - the models are competing on price, speed, reliability, etc.
I also agree that more capable models are still desirable in plenty of spaces. I just see that there is so much lag in the diffusion of existing models, which, again, are already sufficiently capable.
When it solves your problem. I don’t think it makes sense to globally qualify a model as “good enough” any more than it does with programming languages. Python is good enough for a web app, but not for an OS kernel.
To your point, I think we’re past the hump on the Pareto distribution. The models are good enough for most things, and the rate they’re improving at the things they’re bad at is dropping. The odds a new model is good at something the old one was bad it is okay, the odds it’s something you care about is dropping. It makes a lot of sense to discriminate on price rather than features in that environment.
The Chinese labs are just arms of the Chinese government. They have no obligation to be profitable or please (private) investors. If they weaken/collapse American models, then that is the ROI to the lab owners.
This is a pretty strange take on an article explicitly pointing out the profitability of chinese models.
Further, even if this is your take (and I won't touch the geopolitics here, maybe you're right, maybe you're not regarding ulterior motives) - go use non chinese open models that are also good.
China has sandbox capitalism. In the sandbox it looks and feels like capitalism, but the sandbox itself exists in a communist framework, and the state still controls all the inputs, outputs, and can intervene at any point as they please.
In organic capitalism you need to compel arrays of discrete private entities to invest in your idea. In sandbox capitalism, the money can just appear in any amount at the behest of a single controlling individual.
I don't think its that hard to shoehorn current US into those sentences too, maybe switch word 'communism' with 'kleptocracy'.
Less intervening and micro management but oh boy say something not nice about government and potus and suddenly you are a new enemy of the state and 3-letter agencies work day and night to bring you down for good. Or in reverse - put a public bribe to potus and his clan and enjoy some favors for few weeks.
2 years ago I would agree more strongly with you, but we are in new era from now on.
You can see it plainly on the Solar PV market. The likes of Trina, JA, Jinko, etc. all compete aggressively, leading to everyone running at a loss in order to corner the market, and then after a few years the government steps in and orders all of them to raise prices. Happened again at the beginning of this year, raising cost of PV Modules 30-40% for oversees consumers.
Contrast that to US being happy with everyone eating each other alive until all but one company is left standing and can now dictate the prices and enshittify the product to pay back their VC loans.
Isn’t “sandbox capitalism” - real capitalism and what the us is trending towards is the “Wild West” capitalism with monopolies, trusts, and all the other anti competitive things that arise in the free market if there is no external force that tries to keep the market “fair”?
I mean this is not the case for either, but the systems are setup to drift in these directions - a market needs some sort of regulation to keep things sane, otherwise you end up with standard oil and the like.
You want the people with guns controlling things to be at least nominally interested in “the people” and produce more than just “return on investment”.
Not saying that China is like this or that US is bad, but saying that China is bad because it is “controlled capitalism” is kinda missing the point of what it should be in the best case.
You know, it's not just cost-effectiveness, it's also iteration time and speed. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is astoundingly fun to use because it's so quick. Tens of times faster than the standard Frontier models. With, in my experience, practically the same results. Because most of the trouble is not the intelligence of the model. It's the feedback from the world. The quicker you can get feedback from the world, the better your process is, irrespective of raw intelligence metrics of the AI you're using.
I 100% agree and am a big fan of DS V4.1 Flash in general for this reason, but I'll add my own caveat: Sol 6.1 isn't far behind on completion time for tasks because it's so damn efficient. I regularly get ~300 tokens/sec with DeepSeek Flash, but it spends the majority of that time thinking and executing slow commands one by one, whereas Sol thinks less and is much smarter about the commands it runs, resulting in far fewer turns to get the same thing done. For highly agentic tasks, DS might only be ~25-50% faster, not 500% as the TPS may suggest.
(But to be clear: 25-50% faster is still a big win in my book.)
+1; using Sol 6.1 in Ultrafast is noticeably faster than DS 4.1 Flash in real world tasks where marginal intelligence and token efficiency matters. Yes it costs more, but that’s a function of how valuable is the thing you are iterating on.
Yes. I've always suspected inference is profitable.
But I'm also interested is retraining needed? how relevant will a model be in N years if it's just "static", and if you do need to retrain and fine-tune over time, is it still profitable? how often is that needed?
For most cases it's probably ok, often times answers are general or basically a web search anyways, but if my Agent started blasting outdated syntax it would suddenly be way worse for coding for example.
They need to be retrained often is my experience for general usage.
I have SO many cases, for example when shopping, when they make assumptions based on their cutoff date, and they need to redo everything based on lots of searches.
Sure, for many use cases old models will be useful but for general usage a model that's 5 years old will probably be garbage for most people, unless they prompt it extensively, which the general public won't do.
> But I'm also interested is retraining needed? how relevant will a model be in N years if it's just "static", and if you do need to retrain and fine-tune over time, is it still profitable? how often is that needed?
Just wait until what Ilya Sutskever has for Safe Super Intelligence (SSI) to self update the weights without retraining them to bring training costs down close to $0.
Relying on an LLM's baked-in syntax knowledge is suboptimal, compared to leveraging reasonable context affordances (skills, examples, tool calls, MCP servers, search) to ensure adherence to precise APIs and language specs. Don't get me wrong; a model specifically trained on your desired framework is obviously preferable for more consistent generation of idiomatic code -- but relying on that in a large general-purpose model is a questionable proposition IMHO.
There has always been a lot of evidence that prices are only going down. The fact that you could already get DeepSeek or GLM inference from 20+ providers on openrouter.ai was already sufficient evidence that inference was profitable and being commoditized.
People that want to believe something different as a coping mechanism will not be swayed by this evidence either.
It's a commodity, and research into how to make it good will be done in the open. What this means is that we should doubt the justifications offered by magnificent-N-whatever companies slurping up all investment dollars to take over the world by being the first to get "general" "super" intelligence. No, there won't be a runaway improvement. Sadly, AI is just a clone of our inner world. Getting interesting information into it is still going to be just as slow as it is in the regular world. You have to build, tinker, experiment, get data, get knowledge, etc. The only thing getting sped up is how much time needs to be allocated to thinking and translating.
Isn't the modern economy already a runaway improvement? First writing and agriculture, the stone age became copper became bronze became iron became steel, and one Revolution after another - agricultural 1 and 2, industrial, information.
Looks like AI will be another revolution, and eventually, probably the largest.
I’ve never heard anyone say raw inference was unprofitable. It wouldn’t even make sense, I can’t see a rug pull for renting out commodity GPUs.
People are saying _training + inference_ is unprofitable (I don’t have a dog in the race and don’t really care either way). That’s a lot of GPUs and salaries that aren’t generating revenue at any moment.
Personally, I would guess Anthropic and OAI are profitable. I just suspect that they’re a pretty normal level of profitable and not the absurd, near-alchemical “can turn dirt into gold” level of profitable their valuation seems to have priced in.
There may be different thesis out there, but the fact of prices going down definitely doesn't help the case that the major AI labs are are overvalued and need to vastly increase their revenue to stay afloat amidst their contractual obligations.
I honestly don't think there are too many people arguing "AI is actually too expensive to take my job". "AI being too much of a commodity to make meaningful profits" could very well be the case though.
I have seen the former argued many times, though mostly not on HN. It is a cope meme I’ve seen mostly on Twitter and Bluesky, but some on HN and the Elixir forum as well.
They are literally hoping Anthropic & OpenAI go bankrupt (totally possible), and everyone goes back to using their meat brains for work (never happening).
In this context it just doesn’t matter if these companies are profitable after amortizing training cost, because deployment of open weight models that already exist will continue to disrupt economies for at least the next decade if all research ended tomorrow.
I doubt that, I got downvoted several times pointing out inferencing is insanely profitable.
Even take account of R&D cost it is still profitable, because you do not actual retrain the base model every month, only distill and post train from the same foundation.
heck, I think even including the giant cost of the top tier researcher salaries, they are still profitable.
then, how are they still losing money? just read what they are actually spend the most budget: always the hardware. those companies will never profitable, because they will never stop spending money to expand their computational prowess.
> I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while
Unfortunately while in the tech industry some might know that, the general public are still being misled (especially by certain folks who’ve made a living off downplaying AI) to believe inference itself is unprofitable.
Well, as that means there's lots of money to be made lowering costs for research and training! What tools have we used in the past to lower those costs? Automation.. Hm, what if we had AI completely automate AI research? Uh oh, we just rationally found outselves in a trajectory where we lose control of our own trajectory because of economic incentives.
It is wild how fast we're hurtling towards this outcome, lmao.
Yeah I think one of the less considered costs when people talk about this is the human cost of training. We all talk about the billions spent on compute, but I don't think anyone's got good numbers on how much RLHF is costing but it's got to be pretty large.
> The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads.
This is correct for now, but I recently read that 90% of Anthropic's code is written by Claude Code itself. So, if an AI is using its previous version to train the next version, we're not far from the day where these models will take up the decision making process too. For eg: Decisions API by OpenAI or Jev is based exactly on this. What if a model like Jev sits behind Opus 5.5 and guides it to take the next step? Wooh.
Probabilistic predictions right now are at 99% for frontier models. They will never be 100%, but if humans rate themselves 99.9% in decision making, that benchmark can be broken.
As far as I know they haven't been doing any mass layoffs.
So if Claude Code is writing 90% of the code, then why are they keeping probably the most expensive engineers in the world on the payroll?
The machine writing all the code seems to not be enough, even for the company with access to the best models. What's the alternative to explain this discrepancy?
In this game you "win" only if you arrive first, so keeping the same headcount to run faster is a valid option for Anthropic. In this context "winning" means mainly that we lose our jobs
Honestly that's an interesting statement because in my experience Claude writes around 5-10x more code than a reasonable person would to accomplish the same thing. If you include comments then that number goes way up as well.
> I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while
A lot of AI haters like Ed Zitron and their readers have refused to update on this. I don't know if any of them have yet, but it'll take a year or two for the idea to fully filter out of their podcasts anyway.
Seems a bit of a disingenuous framing. Most of the arguments I see are some mix of
1. Their figures have been pretty dodgy or excluded training costs so why is it trustworthy this time?
2. API inference charged at a profitable level rather than heavily subsidised subscriptions means everyone tightens up their usage + governance Which we very much saw with the rise of openrouter et al.
Personally I think there's a lot of the bait and switch of 2 when people talk about profitability of the 10-20% of API usage for Anthropic while also wanting to lump in subsidised chat users as if they're profitable too.
I think we know if it was this clear cut then the behaviours of companies would be wildly different and more consistent with profitability.
There are thoughtful versions of these arguments, sure. There are also thoughtless versions, and it's not disingenuous to note it.
It's not actually clear that subscription users are unprofitable as a group (and the group level is the only important one).
We do know the companies are not currently profitable, because they're open and intentional about that, but that tells us nothing about their margins without infrastructure buildout and investment in training.
If anthropic were making money on subscriptions they wouldn’t be pushing people onto API + enterprise packages.
> We do know the companies are not currently profitable, because they're open and intentional about that
Why do they keep engaging in stunts like excluding infra costs then?
You are picking choosing to ignore evidence and actions when it suits you and then saying “oh we can’t possibly know” when we do absolutely know the problems of capital and debt raising on infrastructure problems (which are mostly not the Big Frontier labs either) there’s hard arithmetic for what’s needed to make these projects profitable. I feel like three strikes is enough disingenuity to be taken in good faith.
The only moat is in datacenters. The software has no moat, since 1) it's already trained on stolen data, and 2) someone with access to AI will be able to reverse engineer a proprietary implementation eventually, the same AI is being used for developing AI.
That's why so many talks about regulations. Regulations means: ban outside competition, just like US bans Chinese EVs today.
I believe they're referring to the user experience, lots of people think you just use AI to finish a sentence a la early Github copilot. The average person hasn't seen what agentic flows can achieve
As someone who has long bought into the idea that the labs are not profitable on inference, I have a question. How is it simultaneously true that there is more demand for inference than supply (apparently by orders of magnitude), but also that inference is so cheap that labs can make healthy margins? It seems like the inference providers, not the model providers, should have the leverage. Why haven’t they said, “give me a bigger cut of each token or I won’t serve your model”?
Also, what happens when the inference providers suffocate on their own debt burdens? Who will serve inference?
It’s not training and research that kills you here, it’s your own investors ROI expectations that murder you cold when faced with Open Source commoditizing you, from a country that spent 5% of the sum you spent to get to the same position and then gives the recipe away to everyone.
If the frontier labs are struggling under the training costs and the leading open source models are making their progress by distilling from the frontier labs it sounds a bit like there’s something wrong with the economics here or that progress is going to slow quite a bit without the amount of investment.
> I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers
> The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads
It's meaningless to say that selling something is profitable if you are ignoring the cost to produce it.
The profitabiity (or not) of AI models needs to be calculated on a per model lifetime basis - what did the model cost to develop and train, what is the lifetime revenue the model generates, and what is the lifetime operational cost of the model (including amortized GPU cost), etc.
It makes no more sense to calculate "inference" profitability when ignoring training cost that it would to calculate it when ignoring GPU cost.
Exactly. And you can't just stop training models, because your competitors won't, and customers are switching providers on a daily basis (most likely an exaggeration).
Hence "we need to slow down progress for safety" [narrator: it had nothing to do with safety]. The industry is begging for the regulation so that there is a coordinated slow down and consequently move towards profitability.
> coordinated slow down and consequently move towards profitability
100%
Amodei has been promising the "end of the exponential" all year, when they can shift some compute away from cash-burning research and training toward cash-generating inference.
"Pacing the frontier" is how you collude with your competitors to all decelerate at the same time because safety.
I saw last week that Anthropic is currently cash-flow positive with 75% of compute going to research and training. If they can flip a switch and move from 3:1 to 2:1 or 1:1 training:inference, they will be insanely profitable.
As long as they can avoid a price war.
>> calculated on a per model lifetime basis
"Pacing the frontier" means every early model doesn't need it's own profitable P&L.
Early models can be big money losers, while helping build the next generation.
As long as at some point they can slow down.
If the industry can coordinate to all decelerate at the same time, then they'll flip from incinerating billions to minting billions, and all that capex will suddenly look completely sustainable.
Unless DeepSeek suddenly gives it all away for free, which is why the big three need government regulation to prevent foreign models from busting the cartel.
if i can run an existing open model because its good enough for what most people need, I can just spin up an inference business, and put my spend either on trying to optimize it further or on customer experience
... and not worry about training cost at all.
a lot of the cloud businesses of the last decades have relied heavily on open source code, again skipping most of the cost to make the product/service being sold.
> if i can run an existing open model because its good enough for what most people need, I can just spin up an inference business, and put my spend either on trying to optimize it further or on customer experience
... and not worry about training cost at all.
> It's meaningless to say that selling something is profitable if you are ignoring the cost to produce it.
At the same time, training costs don’t scale with usage, so no matter how expensive they are, they can be paid for as long as inference is profitable. It is only inherently unsustainable if you lose money on inference.
Of course, it could be that the inference usage required to pay for the training is too high to be possible, but that is a separate argument.
It doesn't just matter that inference is profitable - cash from profitable inference needs to outweigh cash burned by training. If training costs even $1 more than your profits from inference on a model, you lost money on the whole thing.
> Amortized cost of owning a DC full of GPUs is far less than $38/card/hr
You missed the bit where they used the word "revenue".
I suspect if you factor in all the various overheads of running datacentres the actual value is lower. Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity as the old saying goes.
However the Chinese do have the benefit that China are pushing hard on renewable energies. So at least that major part of the equation is probably far lower than your average US/EU site.
You also have to realize deepseeks running costs are immensely lower than say any us lab by orders of magnitude.
Chinas grid is almost entirely renewable energy with strong investments in it. In the us not the case, some dcs are running on gas.
Also DeepSeek was smart. They strategically rolled out model sizes they could support even if the intelligence wasn't the world's best for that week in human history. Then they have incrementally and cheaply improved models since.
Not to mention they also built trust with open weight models rather then fear mongering. They are in the top 3 of the smartest most viable LLM labs out there.
They have more installed renewable capacity than coal, but renewables have low capacity factors, solar is less than 50% by definition. The renewable share is growing fairly rapidly, but it is by now means almost entirely renewable.
Q1 '20 - $0.10 profit per gb shipped (ram and storage)
Q1 '23 - -$0.024 (cyclic ram market)
Q1 '25 - $0.131 this looks normal were on the upswing.
Q4 '26 - $1.136 Were all fucked.
If you look at a chart of S3 prices we have all been living in the "Happy Time" where the cost to run our ever growing software business has gone down. Githb says 2025 billion commits - 14 billion this year, and 2x the actions run. That means AI driven software growth is 2x to 14x.
But those ram/storage prices are going to hit the operational budget of EVERYONE soon.
Can your average sas survive a 4x price increase on its AWS/Azure bill? How about 10x (cause thats what the margins say the premium is on ram).
If the circular financing is a concern, the circular firing squad should be a bigger one. Your paying for tokens to build more software to pay more to run your software is not a sustainable cycle. People are starting to use the words CapEx again - and it's a good thing.
We don't need 10x more software per se. It's removing the high cost and exclusivity from software production (but not just software production). It also enables the production of highly specialized software by non-specialists, so it broadens the field dramatically (things that were not being produced, will be). Simply put, every bit of software that can be useful, will definitely be made; and a whole lot of unnecessary software will be made in that process as well, that's chaos-discovery for you.
AI as a business will be 10x larger than it is today within the next 20 years.
Present valuations are the bubble, not the business / industry. The exact same thing was true about the Internet bubble circa the late 1990s, except this is a lot more important than the Internet and the global economy is drastically larger.
Productivity is how you expand economy and wealth. It's how China can go from being one of the world's most backwards agricultural nations, unable to feed itself properly, to gradually becoming an agriculture juggernaut. AI is a hyper productivity tool, saving people time and bolstering capability are two of the primary productivity concepts.
Artificial intelligence will 'infect' every surface of life and business. The Internet is merely a distribution platform for intelligence (and yes that includes TikTok videos). Its first distribution chore was slow and quaint, it was human. The intelligence was always the higher value, not the distribution network.
Distribution of intelligence: data, photos, video, communications, transactions, entertainment, et al.
And to be clear, it doesn't matter if some random commentors on HN don't think very highly of some or all of the intelligence being distributed. Their elitist opinion of the quality of intelligence of a given thing doesn't matter as to whether it's happening or not.
When a 16 year old records a cloned TikTok dance video, edits it, and then publishes it, that's intelligence distribution. That's a person thinking through a series of actions to try to communicate to an end audience, via an entertaining medium. That's intelligence being distributed over the Internet. That's the quaint, slow, human form of it.
Up to this point that distribution was basically entirely human, capped (post saturation) at slow growth N intelligence output (derived from the total number of humans and their time / productivity capabilities). AI uncaps that and radically expands intelligence output & distribution at a growth rate that is so fast you might as well start picturing the planet having tens or hundreds of billions of people on it. The human population will shrink, the artificial population will increase dramatically. People will have more artificial friends than human friends within ~20-30 years.
A few decades from now the notion of thinking of computing separate from AI will be so foreign most people won't understand what you're talking about. It will just be thought of as computing. Humans will forget a time when we weren't augmented by the constantly presence of artificial intelligence. Try taking their 'smart' phones away from the masses. In about a decade try taking away their helper agents. A decade after that try taking away their home robots.
The steroid jump is AI + robotics. The Internet is trite compared to what comes out of that over the rest of this century. Robotics will physically remake our world, in a way the Internet can't. We'll deposit tens of billions of robots onto the surface of the planet and they will almost all be the result of having figured out how to make intelligence (relatively) easy & (relatively) cheap.
The information age is over. We're into the age of intelligence (insert the unavoidable quips about humanity & intelligence).
The Internet is just one way to move intelligence around. It's a sub value to intelligence broadly. Intelligence is the ultimate value. The valuations (and sales growth) for OpenAI and Anthropic is because they're vast intelligence output machines in the Age of Intelligence, ditto Nvidia's business boom.
The masses won't think it's awful though, and that's the thing that will facilitate its explosion as a commonality across the planet. The masses are extremely lonely all over the planet. Along with desperately loving entertainment, they desperately want companionship.
Just as human intelligence is merely one form of intelligence, human companionship will be merely one form of companionship. AI friends will offer a new type. And for the masses it's going to feel very real and very legitimate. They'll like their AI friends as much or more than they like their human friends.
And the fake friend explosion can happen first quietly, which eliminates the initial shame phase problem. Nobody will have to know you have fake friends, or how much you interact with them. Until it's common it'll be viewed as shameful (pathetic, proof of social ineptness) and mocked by society, then it'll be normalized. This idea isn't novel, it's extremely obvious and right now we're just waiting for a few pieces of the LLM puzzle to get to the point where they're good enough to facilitate high quality artificial friends.
It'll happen shockingly rapidly when it sparks; slowly at first and then in the span of 3-5 years we'll go from nobody having or being willing to admit to having artificial friends, to everybody openly discussing it. It will then seem more odd to not have artificial friends, like people that refuse to own smartphones or use the Internet. People will start commonly referring to their artificial friends by name in conversations with other human friends. These behaviors will become entirely socially normal.
"Yeah I had Alice clean the house before I went on vacation." Every major personal robot, every artificial friend, will get a name. Humans name their vehicles, so they're definitely going to name their $10k-$20k house bot and the artificial friends they spend large amounts of time with. When you go on a long drive (etc), your artificial friends will be there to keep you company, and they will remember your life events as well or better than you do (if you give them access to that recording/memory capability).
> Humans name their vehicles, so they're definitely going to name their $10k-$20k house bot
huh. I can only think of one friend I've ever known who named their car.
Anyways, not saying I necessarily disagree with the rest of what you say, but it's out there, for sure. We're a good distance away from an AI that can meaningfully act like a friend.
(Though who knows what AI will look like in even 10 years? I'm not ruling this out)
Maybe some people will like to have artificial friends with genuine two-way relationship, but I think most of us want artificial servants. Robots that clean our house, keep us company, or maybe even act as romantic partner without asking anything in return. Maybe some of them will feel like friends, but in the end, we are their owners and they are our servants. Genuine friendship requires freedom and autonomy for the other side to walk away if they so choose, and are we really going to give that to our AI bots? I doubt it.
> Along with desperately loving entertainment, they desperately want companionship.
And I am presuming that the companionship that people need is the companionship of other human beings. Otherwise, tamagotchi, fish, cats, dogs, parrots, and horses are already perfectly good companions. AI can help fill in for some of those other ones (tamagotchi especially), but it cannot replace human companionship.
this is tech fart sniffing self-aggrandization. You’re saying words that mean nothing. Tens of billions of robots? To do what, exactly? Have you ever interacted with people, not nerds, real human people? Real people don’t crave a future filled with robots, real people want real people.
The world will be filled with robots is not the inspired forward-thinking of a visionary it is the uninspired regurgitated science fiction of someone who doesn’t care to understand that the world is people, a society.
If real people want real people, then why is everyone at the coffee shop, on the train, at parties, and even at the dinner table all looking at their phones? Not all the time, but way too much of the time, imo.
> at parties, and even at the dinner table all looking at their phones
This is very different from what I see.
At coffee shops and on trains, sure, people are working or on their phones. But at dinner and parties, at bars and climbing gym and dances, we're there to be there with each other.
Maybe a cultural difference between where you are and where I am?
There's nothing that is going to stop the AI-robot saturated future from arriving. It doesn't matter if you dislike it.
China will have many billions of robots just in their industrial efforts alone. Every house and every apartment in China will saturate with robots of various usefulness. That single market will be at least 10+ billion in scale.
There will be a billion robots for just the delivery and transport categories globally. We're going to peak at at least 10 billion humans (population), a billion robots for delivery & transport segments is easy.
In the toy category there will eventually be far in excess of a billion robots. They will seem quite advanced compared to what we presently are used to in that category. The Microduck is a primitive example of what will be a large industry around smart entertaining toys. Your artificial friends will be able to 'hop into' (take control of) your Microduck (whatever the 2035-2050 equivalent is) and cruise around the house or wherever you're at. Entertainment will continue to be a gigantic industry and that will obviously apply to AI + life. We haven't even begun down the road of AI + entertainment, it's less than early there.
Every household in the world will eventually have numerous robots, from primitive robots (including single purpose and toys), to advanced humanoid robots. It won't take longer than 2050-2060 to push $10k-$20k humanoid robots into middle class or upper middle class homes. China will put enormous pressure on the cost of those robots, and they'll mass sell them to the bottom 4/5 of the world in terms of household incomes (that is, they'll come up from the floor on price and take most of the market, while some companies in affluent nations will produce more expensive high-end humanoid bots, ala what Tesla is attempting).
Tens of billions of robots globally is easy. 200-300 billion artificial friends is also an easy prediction. Social junkies will have 50-100 artificial friends that they try to tend to. It'll largely replace platforms like Facebook, the utility that served for the average person. Humans will get a lot more isolated from each other and as that occurs they'll fill in the void.
I am a nerd on Hacker News. My preference for technology and robots is obvious and an assumption that my disagreement with you is based on personal preference is brainless.
I have spent time in China and Korea where attitudes towards artificial intelligence are much more positive than the west. I have interacted with robots in these countries.
You are making the fundamental mistake all nerds make. You’re thinking about what is possible and concluding that it is what will happen. Just as nerds believe that someday it will be possible for us to live on mars and therefore we are going to live on mars.
Humans are humans. Humans are interacting with artificial intelligence as if it is human because they crave human contact and are so desperate they settle for the best they can get.
The houses filled with robots future goes hand in hand with the robots will be doing all our work future. And if robots are doing all our work, what do humans have? Time. So much time. Humans become creatures of leisure. No longer is there a too little time to build relationships, there is only time, so much time. Human relationships become abundant, humans spend all their time being human.
The idea that people will have 50-100 artificial friends is so batshit crazy that I could totally believe your comment is parody.
There's a rising trend among gen alpha to not use phones or internet to get back their youth period that was ruined by the algorithms. I predict this trend will continue, and I myself am yearning to use less technology each day (but can't because of salary!).
But yeah, masses will do masses stuff and that's why even shit products can sell.
When that happens, the chips stocks will have tanked back to sane levels and the doom posting will be about that. That will put us in the 2001 era of post dot com bubble, and the following few years will show us who the winner are
Other replies covered this, but I was basing that comment on the prices that commodity providers charge for GPU-accelerated VMs. E.g. the going rate for a NVIDIA B300 (288GB RAM) and the VM around it is somewhere between $5 and $20 an hour [1].
These providers have very little incentive to charge unprofitable prices (except maybe capturing more of the market, but there's not much lock-in here), so it's reasonable to assume somewhere in that spread is the "true" cost of being in this business, all expenses included.
[1] I'm using https://gpus.io as a reference here, and that's on-demand prices, which will tend to be the highest relative to other options.
A lot of people have already replied to this point but I think I want to distill the problems a little more directly:
- If inference is this profitable, is it profitable enough to offset the enormous training costs, bot those already incurred and those in the future?
- If inference is profitable, can it cover other capital and operational expenditures the hyperscalers and neoclouds are committing to, on the timelines they're committing to, to scale out inference?
- If inference is profitable we can measure if the price/earnings ratio of current valuations is sane. Is it?
- If inference is profitable, is it - given the answers to the questions above - profitable enough to make the risks of lenders of the huge amount of debt companies are taking on to scale, rational? It's one thing to say as a hyperscaler "we can make this pay", it's another to say "I'm going to lend them the money to do that and I'm going to get my money back on the timescales we agreed, and with an ROI to boot".
- Finally, if inference is profitable why is Nvidia specifically lending money to companies to buy Nvidia cards to do that inference, and then hitting the credit default swap markets to cover the risk of never getting that money back, and doing so at ever increasing cost, when they could just go build a profitable inference business themselves?
I agree seeing the numbers is good. It does suggest profitability in some segment of the market. However I still have a lot of questions.
Inference is very profitible when you can deal with the batch sizes Anthropic, Deepseek and OpenAI are dealing with, renting GPUs for inference is even more profitible.
The US is dealing with different tax code where buying GPUs function as as great way to offset taxes, and having boatloads of debt is rewarded in many cases. I think there's lots more (crooked) reasons why inference is even more profitible in the US.
100% the right questions. The implied thought process of so many on this thread: Inference profitable >> Frontier Labs' are profitable overall. Sigh...
Most of your questions are things that are relevant to everybody due to a possible economic crash. And you are right to point this out.
But for me as an AI user those aspects are not really relevant in my decisions. If an AI bubble bursts providers will still want to sell me those tokens at that price and yes development will slow down for a time which does change not a lot for me.
But haven't the Chinese (and Deepseek specifically) put a lot of emphasis on running models efficiently (because they've been locked out of being able to obtain certain GPUs by the US)? Whereas the US frontier companies seemed to get huge cash inflows and didn't need to worry about efficiency as much and put more emphasis on frontier performance. So how do you know that this $38/card/hr is about the same that the US frontier companies are making?
>It's really refreshing to put some cold hard numbers on this stuff, hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments.
Inference has always been profitable. The problem is that this profit shrinks as your model becomes less competitive. The labs are in a constant race to release the best model to maintain inference profit. Deepseek is not training their own models at the scale of OpenAI and Anthropic and mostly sustains off their efforts via distillation.
> It's really refreshing to put some cold hard numbers on this stuff, hopefully this quells some of the "AI is unprofitable everyone is spending a dollar to make fifty cents" arguments. Amortized cost of owning a DC full of GPUs is far less than $38/card/hr
They (well, most of them) are looking at loans and debt (in plain sight and hidden) of AI companies and asking "what will pay for that", not looking at how much a GPU costs and how much tokens you can sell off it.
Just putting a model on a GPU and selling it is profitable, period.
But spending more and more money on building and running infra to build frontier models that solve smaller and smaller piece of the pie might very well be unprofitable.
Models competing with the frontier labs gets more capable every month and more and more of the tasks can be achieved without reaching for the big guns.
We might very well get to the point where AI/LLM is profitable just fine but bubble still bursts and the big frontier labs are in trouble. And frankly that would lead to far more sustainable ecosystem.
I don’t know, I take this as there being a good amount of margin that is going to be suppressed due competition in the very near term. It will be interesting to see how these margins hold up over the next 12 months, I expect them to drop substantially
I still feel like there are some questions there, as in what is the actual amortized cost, plus the ongoing variable costs and even the non-training related overhead.
Plus there is the actual demand side to consider and how does it impact when paid utilization isn't 100%.
Now that the unit economics are laid out in the open, What stops any of the companies or even startups from anywhere in the world with some investment $ and competence from spinning up and offering their own version of the inference engines, undercutting any moat that the current leaders have?
I could even see F1000 companies having their own backstop intelligence for most of the tasks and only use frontier where it is absolutely needed or as much as it is under their IT budget.
Won't it be race to the bottom when they compete on cost? Is regulatory capture the only moat left for the market leaders now?
I think you have to take this on a case by case basis - there is no reason to suppose that the training costs and serving costs are the same for all companies for all models and for all price plans. Some may be profitable, others not.
DeepSeek's models are relatively small, and training costs will be correspondingly lower than for larger models. All you have here is a revenue number - no mention of (training + serving) cost, so while they may well be profitable you can't determine that from this number alone (if it can be trusted).
DeepSeek (investor meeting leak) have previously said that they price their models at a point where the GPU is paid for after 10 months, so something doesn't seem to add up here. If they were making $38/hr per card 24x7, then in 10 months they'd be making $270K per card, while the cards (Huawei?) only cost around $20K.
Deepseeks strategy is that each project must break even within 10 months.
$38/hrs equals $320K in 10 months.
Assume they only have 100 racks, and as much as 40% operational costs. That would get them about $20M in 10 months, which I suspect is more than what 4.1 flash training has cost them.
DS4 Flash is so cheap also, imagine what the numbers look like for a flagship model like Opus 5.5, which charges 100x more. Of course inference for that model also costs more, but I doubt the proportion is the same.
The top quality frontier models are used to compress / improve the earlier, lesser models, to make them more efficient. So that pushes costs way down on previous models.
How is the math so good for data centres but so bad for home gear? A Mac mini capable of running these models ends up at around 10 years of subscription costs.
Because the datacenter setups serve multiple users concurrently while your mac mini only serves one. You would also lose money hand over fist renting/buying 4xH200s just to serve deepseek flash to yourself.
Serving LLM inference is more efficient with more concurrent requests. For a single inference request, the bottleneck is GPU memory bandwidth, as the inference engine spends most of its time waiting to move values in memory. With concurrent requests, it's possible to service multiple requests in a single pass through the model weights, meaning you can utilize more of the GPU/APU's compute.
So you have to price your local hardware against however many subscriptions you would need to run a dozen concurrent agents around the clock.
But even then, I would guess subscriptions are priced on the basis that they don't expect every user to utilize their entire usage limit. I.e. power users are subsidized by casual users.
No, those $3 are on the high end. If you do not factor in hardware depreciation, at China's low electricity prices (largest variable cost and China has a surplus larger than many country's entire consumption) and with GB200 which is one of DeepSeek's main platforms, the operation cost is actually less than 50 cents per hour most likely. If you factor in hardware depreciation this rises significantly but almost certainly stays under 3 usd per hour, probably closer to 2.
Orinally it was an educated guess based on rental prices I've seen but Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash both arive at the same numbers based on DeepSeek's Zhihu post and GB200 specs. Around 30 cents before depreciation and $2 to 3.50 including it.
I'm curious why such a large gap exists between our numbers. My hypotheses are:
A. The average utilization rate of inference GPU cards is not that high (i.e. it peaks during the daytime, but is idle at night). So the time window for earning $38/h is fairly limited.
B. They are renting costly GPU capacity from 3rdparty hyperscalers because they can't meet the peak demand with their own hardware.
C. Free-tier users are eating the gross margin.
D. Subscription users are eating the gross margin.
Another observable point is that Deepseek's company-wide gross margin was reportedly 44.6%. I'm curious what the full picture looks like here.
> The average utilization rate of inference GPU cards is not that high (i.e. it peaks during the daytime, but is idle at night). So the time window for earning $38/h is fairly limited.
In DeepSeek's case this kind of levels out because they have a large user base both in China and the West (time zones), and additionally attract users in the non-Chinese timezones using their off peak 50% discount which is what DeepSeek talks about here.
> B. They are renting costly GPU capacity from 3rdparty hyperscalers because they can't meet the peak demand with their own hardware.
I looked this up from Chinese sources and DeepSeek primarily builds their own compute infrastructure rather than renting it
> C. Free-tier users are eating the gross margin.
> D. Subscription users are eating the gross margin.
That's true, but given how lucrative inference at API rates is, they can subsidize training and individual users to some degree. Are they still losing money overall? Not unlikely, but with moonshots that is often the case. Remember that Uber and Spotify took around 15 years to have their first profitable quarters.
DeepSeek CEO has previously said that their finance team considers the optimal payback period for hardware purchase to be 10 months. That is, 10 months worth of revenue should be equal to the purchase price of the hardware. This doesn’t cover operational costs such as electricity. This is their method for API pricing.
No, the absolute max power draw of these cards is like 1.5 kW, say 3 kW per card with mediocre cooling attached to a server. DCs get power in the 10c/kWh range at most. So 30c/card/hour, peanuts. And this is the most power hungry card at full tilt with mediocre cooling efficiency.
And thanks to China’s forward thinking on infrastructure and planning for oil shortages, both short term and long term, they will have access to the lowest energy costs most likely.
Its not 10 months worth of revenue should be equal to purchase price.
He is saying 10 months margin will cover the hardware cost, so revenue is ofcourse going to be higher, quote below.
"This is our API pricing. For our API pricing, we consider a reasonable profit to be roughly: we buy a batch of equipment from the market, and recoup the cost in ten months. I think that's a reasonable profit."
I read the same quote and I think it is ambiguous. I think he is talking from the cash flow perspective. He doesn’t mean it in the accounting sense where the amount of recognizable profit in 10 months is equal to the depreciation allowed in the 10 months.
Even if it is implying cashflow, cashflow would not include operating expenses (he has to pay those monthly), which would imply he is referring to margin not including capex?
I just installed a $16k GPU at home - super pricy to be sure, but when you price it against hiring 4 junior developers working around the clock it's a steal
My use-case is coding. I'm typically coding interactively with an agent most of the day, and then I have overnight jobs that run every night.
As for the infra setup, I am currently using llama.cpp, although I'm just now working on switching to vllm since it is better for concurrent inference, since it can interleave prompt-processing and decode. Until now llama.cpp was enough, since I was on an R9700 and it was only practical to run one agent with decent sized context anyway.
I want to understand this more - are you saying "would pay for itself" if you are offering chatbot commercially? Or using it yourself in lieu of ChatGPT etc..?
Do they share latency / concurrency figures (aka the deployment shape that gets them that token/s/cluster? Would be interesting if they're using deepEP/WideEP + PP and TP
If open source inference engines proliferate (in terms of adoption, across models, across inference hardware) I imagine you'd get pricing pressure on that inference rev towards base card cost, so my interpretation is this is actually a bad development for compute providers.
Indeed. This could actually be what breaks America's world order.
AI can already clone major products like Photoshop and Office. Maybe not at 100% feature parity for now but at a "good-enough" surface level. That will only keep improving. Eventually we could get clones of Windows and macOS at feature parity.
Even if US lobbying/corruption tries to cripple AI to prevent that, China will instigate and accelerate it.
You can buy such a PC off from ebay for only €150.000. We did.
But the architecture is similar to kimi's mixture of experts, and we already have such an optimization for different experts swapped in from disc by antirez.
This is a major, major datapoint. That’s at least an order of magnitude higher margin than literally anyone is discussing. The entire ai discourse currently assumes very small margins on open model inf. And by this post it’s more like 1600% (h100s rent for $2/hr - and id guess deepseeks costs are far below that)
155T tokens/day per cluster? OpenRouter reports that last week total usage on their platform was 164T tokens. Surely all that demand couldn't be satisfied with one cluster? Are these different units of token, or maybe something got lost in translation?
From the Github benchmark numbers, one GPU can do about 26k tokens/s when serving 256 users, which is about 2.25B tokens/day. A cluster would need to be close to 70k GPUs to serve 155T tokens/day (which seems doubtful).
Napkin math comparing a cluster with a single latest gaming GPU shows a that the cluster pushes about 9 million times more tokens per day. And the cluster runs a more powerful model.
I hope either Anthropic or OpenAI would share this info. Their post IPO the only thing they have to report is net margin, so we'll never know whether their costs are from inference or training.
If them releasing their stuff openly burns down whatever the closed ecosystem is doing just maybe that closed ecosystem isn't that great. If something can't survive less resourced option making it stuff public maybe there is lot of wrong with that something.
DeepSeek is a fixture among privacy-conscious local LLM advocates, but they are still battling for marketshare.
This is advertisement for them, and more so for large entities (like governments and corporations) looking for digital sovereignity: the more they are reassured they can run of their stack locally when needed, the more they will use the cloud offer too.
I’m pretty sure this is rage bait. The idea that China is more interested in virtue signaling than pulling off a power move that will improve their chess position is not worth a serious reply.
No, that isn't going to happen. The US can't afford to lose the AI race and US companies that can't compete will get thrown under the bus and replaced with those that can.
The DHS order only bans buying DeepSeek products directly (e.g. doing inference on their China hosted servers). It does not apply to open weights at all. And DeepSeek just gave their response to the DHS order.
No, it is being interpreted that way by people who either don't understand basic legal writing and the legal standards for an order of this nature, or by people [who] are purposefully FUD'ing in order to take advantage of that lack of specialist knowledge.
I don't understand basic legal writing, you you may very well be right. I would be nervous about fulfilling a contract or building a company with, for example, my code base, which is heavily built with deepseek
I understand basic legal writing very well (I went to school for it, though I don't practice) and I think you're dead wrong. 'third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations' (used consistently in the text of the rule) is deliberately broad and indicate a refusal of all derivative products, not just offerings of the DS models provisioned on OpenRouter or suchlike.
Now, most software products developed with DS can pass an audit, whether human or from a US AI provider, that they do what they say and aren't secretly funneling telemetry to Beijing. When I say 'most..can pass an audit' I mean that most products are simple enough to undergo such an audit, rather than implying that some have exfiltration mines buried within; it's possible but I have have no reason to think it's probable. I believe the purpose of the broad wording is to facilitate the waiver requirement, which costs money to apply for and will require payment to an accredited or government approved audit provider, thus generating DSP on the US balance sheet even if the original prototyping/buildout was done with Deepseek.
"DeepSeek implementation" in this context means a third-party product that uses a DeepSeek product, e.g. the DeepSeek API. This does not apply to open data running on a non-affiliated third-party inference provider.
Can you explain how this removes their moat? Genuine question, I'm not sure I understand enough about LLMs to get how an open source inference engine undermines them.
In theory, this can allow a small US lab to compete with O/A/G and take marketshare from them with small open models deployed centrally or (and this is think is the real moat) on-prem for enterprises.
I saw the same kind of comments when the first Deepseek model was initially released. However the relevance that investors assign to something like this does not seem to match the excitement expressed here.
I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
European business users (+ consumers) can access GLM-5.3 via Mistral.ai hosting. (with GDPR)
Europe is going to be just as worried about using US models for large parts of government related functions and they're going to feel alot better about open source self-hosted chinese models than US models which can literally get turned off on a whim by Trump. They'd prefere home grown models if they can, but if they can't they'll go self-hosted and that'll be Chinese at this rate.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
They'd be wrong. Especially about Europe. Many companies are in a bind about this: they can't upload their confidential files to a service provider but they do want AI. So right now they end up with a choice: do nothing, breach their contracts, use a service provider that pinky promises not to share their data (which we have already seen they will violate) and run local models.
The latter is the reason you can't buy powerful GPUs for reasonable prices because a local model (GLM 5.3, DS 4, etc) + some hardware is all you need to solve the problem in a way that avoids the legal issues.
You can’t buy gpus at reasonable prices because US frontier labs are spending nearly a trillion dollars this year on data center buildout, not because some mid tier European insurance co needs to serve deepseek
Yes, well, you're wrong about that. They're buying GPUs by the pallet here.
Mid tier insurance co is working with local inference providers and some of these now have thousands of GPUs up and running. Don't drink the HN cool aid that the EU is a backwater where nothing happens too much or you'll end up surprised one day.
The one thing where Europe really does lag is in training, that would be fair. But inference providers are popping out of the ground like mushrooms and there are some billion euro+ projects underway.
The 'by the pallet' buys are for small local projects, not data center size projects (of which we have more than a couple as well), as you probably already knew. This isn't some silly dick measuring contest.
The point was: they're buying them from the retail channels in relatively high volume because there is a massive shortage of GPUs in general, but that does not seem to stop parties with smaller projects who do not qualify for buying directly from NV (assuming NV even has stock to sell).
5090's now sell for the same amount (or more) that you could buy an RTX 6000 for a few months ago, and RTX 6000's are ~19K and up.
I found a stash somewhere, bought two, then two more and when I was ready to buy the remainder they were all gone. Serves me right for being too careful.
You can’t buy gpus at reasonable prices because US frontier labs are spending nearly a trillion dollars this year on data center build
Its not just the US ... Where do you think all those 5090's end up? Its just crypto mining all over again. Most people do not realize that China was the biggest crypto mining operation because of its cheap electricity and people willingness to take big risks.
The same happens now also, with people buying up 5090's (and lower class cards) in bulk, to strap into AI rigs. With Nvidia discontinuing the 32GB 5090s, we already see pressure on the lower end cards that had a better price / performance for a while now.
China will do China things *lol* ... People there are just more willing to take bigger gambles (and the cheap elec helps a ton). But that is also a factor why a lot of consumer level hardware gets under pressure. Its not just the supply chain to the enterprise market that is eating a lot for AI.
That does not matter so much anymore, when Huawei starts selling those NPUs for a fraction of the NVIDIA price. It's all downhill from there on for OpenAI, Anthropic and NVIDIA.
It's all downhill for OpenAI and Anthropic investors, because they will never recoup what was invested. NVDA is safe(r) - Huawei first needs to catch it, and as AMD learned, it's a fast moving target.
You do realize there are hundreds of datacenters in Europe and the US that rent GPUs to European companies, right? You don't have to buy a GPU or even figure out how to use one. Pay for SageMaker.
Europe isn't in a bind. They can, and have been, running open weights on inference providers around the world. And they pay a premium for US models and accept its risk for the same reason they remain US allies. The cost is worth it.
The other choice is AWS Bedrock, if it happens to have the model you're interested in. They do have GLM-5.3. They don't have DS-4 or 4.1 yet, and updates are intermittent at best, but they're already on the trusted provider list for anywhere large enough to be interesting.
Yeah, about that... My kid works for a very small company. Chatted the other day about in-house inference vs ZDR providers and all. His team is trying to get access to GLM on AWS Bedrock. It is a second week they are trying to schedule a simple meeting to discuss what they need. Random silence, and back and forth from a new person each time. 2 WEEKS to just schedule a meeting... And as far as I know, no luck so far.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
Well they are wrong, I'm at a large EU startup and they are currently considering Deepseek as their default model, Opus/Fable would still be available for complex tasks.
This isn't true, especially not with the inference engine becoming public, now you can build your on models on the same or similar architecture and ship massive gains on top of these stacks.
I think people don't realize the Salesforce SAP Palantir would love to ship these models, and they have/are shipping them.
The threat of exfilteration of data via these models is high but it's nowhere near as high as the margins.
For instance if you could cut your ai input bill by over 90% would you do it? Can you put some of that extra margin say 10-20% to make it more secure.
I know of atleast 10 fortune 500 companies that are entirely planning to or have moved to Chinese models for a large portion of their work.
It's insane people in finance are delusional enough to think that won't happen.
Maybe Govt will try to de-risk with bans on using open models but I don't think that's going to work at scale, people will literally spawn labs to launder DeepSeek/GLM models into a US model by some novel training etc approach or something.
I still don't think that it's as much a kami-kaze rather it's an attempt to normalize the world around the Chinese stack.
If DeepInfer is supported by everyone, it will be much easier to export stuff aka hardware that only supports it for now or is optimized for it.
Assume china starts selling hyper optimized Asics for inference at some point.
This feels like a race to the bottom as soon as possible because they have much lower costs, if there is a Wipeout in AI Labs in US chinese labs are largely insulated, and they can hopefully buy Nvidia chips for cheap if that does happen.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
Quite failure by someone to assume that EU businesses would use US over Chinese, based on the current political atmosphere. US causes even bigger concerns than Chinese labs.
It is flabbergasting, indeed. I'm no friend of China, because it is an evil dictatorship, but as a business man I prefer dealing with China over the USA nowadays. At least China is predictable, even in its corruption.
It's just a single dictator. China has one dictator with full unilateral uncontested power. No courts shooting down orders or elections changing tides. One guy, all the power. Every official, citizen, and business owner take his orders, uncontested.
If you think that is the choice basket to put your eggs in, best of luck.
Exactly. Imagine China's dictator would kidnap some other foreign president just to steal their country's natural resources. Or if he just starts a war against some Middle East country to take the focus away from some pedophile scandal.
Thanks God nothing like that could happen in the US, thanks to its constitution, courts and armed informed citizens. That's why I'm putting all my eggs in that basket.
Our pedophile convicted Felon president literally tried to take control by force, caused an insurrection and said I quote:
> In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote.
At least the Chinese president isn't a pedophile enriching himself at the expense of the Chinese people. China has steadily increased the quality of life for its people where the quality of life for the average American has steadily decreased.
Did you hear about the belt and roads initiative? Like this is the stuff that gives soft power in geopolitics. When was the last time the US did something comparable?
I think Xi is pretty benevolent as dictators go. Bad things you could point to are the continued threats against Taiwan, repressive policy in Xinjiang, and strategic support of Russia (whose dictator I think is far more amoral than Xi). Good things are Xi's apparent preference for advancing China's interests rather than self-gratification, his hostility to corruption, and the transformation of the country from an industrial to a technological superpower with a paternalistic but not suffocating style of governance.
That is not entirely true.
The central committee is extremely powerful, but so are the local governments that actually send the representative, the reason the central committee always votes in unanimity is because the discussion happen at the local government level, a local Chinese government may be ruling over hundreds of millions of people.
I'm not saying this is good, I'm merely stating that the central committee power and Xi's power is still limited by the sheer size of the Chinese state.
If you compare that dictatorship to the Stalin dictatorship or Gheddafi dictatorship you'll find that Xi does not have that kind of unfettered power through sheer violence, he still needs to make a high number of cogs to work in unison to exercise it.
I think there is also a perhaps the need to assign air-quotes to "investors" when talking about the US markets.
There's too much fluff and noise there. Too much (over)leveraged trading. Too much speculation.
What the real investors think is hidden behind the actions of the speculative traders.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models
The Chinese models are open-weight. You can download them and run them on your own servers. Or you can outsource to Mistral, Privatemode or any of the many other US/EU inference hosters.
So the "security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns" arguments are effectively non-existent. And whatever argument does possibly remain, also applies equally to Anthropic, OpenAI & co.
If you believe those investor, I assume you mortgage and bet all your wealth on it. SpaceX? Anthropic? Chinese has talents, electricity and Huawei. I really believe those investors are tulip blind to pile money into those western AI. China even now world number 3 ssd+ram ahead of SK Hynix. So armageddon of RAM SSD LLM model at dirt cheap price. And as time progress, large ram and small gpu will be built into handphone (which again dominate by Chinese).
>I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
Correct. And they're likely very correct in the belief.
When people on the internet claim that frontier labs are done for because Chinese open-weight models exist, they really don't appreciate that the people spending the money do not want to hear "we can just run it cheaper ourselves!" Any software engineer with even a few years of experience knows that phrase is absurd, and executives are simply not interested in the risks associated with such an endeavour when they can just buy the solution outright.
Consumers will have access to open-weight models just like how consumers have access to Linux. But you can just go look at the market share of operating systems to see why something being free and openly available doesn't matter to executives who just wants to get things done and is willing to pay a premium to a trusted business to do the work for them.
And none of that even touches the fact that these frontier labs have only ever been in-front of open-weight alternatives. Again, if you're an executive, and you're questioning if you should pay a premium for a better version of a tool which you presume is important for your company's ability to compete, then the answer is immediately obvious: pay the premium or risk falling behind competition who is willing to pay the premium. And when you're talking about global companies who can pay these bills without it being significant enough to even show up on a quarterly financial statement, then it's an obvious sell.
>But you can just go look at the market share of operating systems to see why something being free and openly available doesn't matter to executives who just wants to get things done and is willing to pay a premium to a trusted business to do the work for them.
That's why most of the internet runs on Windows IIS rather than Linux or BSD. That's why everyone here is running a VM on their Mac that hosts Windows containers to do development in.
> executives are simply not interested in the risks associated with such an endeavour when they can just buy the solution outright
I think you're missing two things here.
1. The margin by which a hosted product is operationally superior to self hosting an open source alternative is precisely calibrated. The SaaS provider has no reason to invest beyond the point were they can reliably make the sale.
2. Self hosted open source solutions come with a big bonus re: the ability to read and modify their code. But realistically ain't nobody got time for that.
AI upsets the apple cart in both cases. It's now far easier to manage locally hosted open source solutions, which means that in order to maintain the favorable effort ratio for making a sale, products must all get significantly better than their open source alternatives. That's gonna be a slow process involving innovative product owners. AI is getting better faster than it can happen.
Also, since AI is trained on the open source code, it's very good at integrating open source components. Previously nobody was bothering to gain that kind of mastery over their tools but now you can leverage it right out of the gate--but only if you're using projects that are in your assistant's training data. Maintaining a moat around a software product has always been orthogonal to making your product useful, but as we lean on AI more, it'll get worse. The more you protect your IP, the more its usability degrades. This was always true, but now it doubly true.
Executives may want to pay for a solution to their problems. But the companies that might provide those solutions no longer have a sustainable path.
The future of software is as a tool, not as a product or a service.
There are times I wonder if the "just use China!" sentiment is astroturfing. That'd certainly explain why there's a lot of calls for that in the face of China's long and storied history of hacking Western networks.
It's generally understood that for better or for worse, if you're working on anything (not just IT) that is security-sensitive, you're going to have restrictions on what can and cannot be done that may seem absurd at first, but hold up to scrutiny once more thoroughly examined. I would say that you don't even need to thoroughly examine this particular restriction. I have prod data at work that I can't give to humans outside of the United States. Not in India, not in the UK, not even in Canada. Clients insist on these clauses in contracts. This has been a known practice across many fields in this industry for decades.
Now we're suddenly seeing a chorus of posts saying that we should loosen up and send data to a non-human intelligence that was developed by a known geopolitical rival with a history of malicious intrusion on Western networks. Where does that come from?
Linux is actually a pretty poignant example here because Linux is not a "hobby" or "homegrown" operating system. Every server everywhere just about is running linux. When these software companies, who by the way are the ones who will be using AI, build software, they target Linux. They build their software to run on Linux containers then deploy them to Linux servers. If not their own, then servers running on the biggest cloud providers which all use... Linux.
The piece I think we're missing is that, currently, AI is for software development. It theoretically has other uses, but nobody has found much of a way to capitalize on them. For the time being, most of the money being made is in models and harnesses for software development. There's already precedent here to use more open/cheaper solutions.
Not to mention, if you make data security guarantees or have specific contracts, you can't even use US providers anyway.
lol big corporations are 100% using Chinese models in their business operations. They dgaf about security, speak to anyone in cybersecurity or cyber insurance
The labs pushing this cyber scare is an attempt to cry wolf. The corps don’t give a fuck
Not really. Anthropic’s headcount isn’t huge, and only a subset of their employees are working on the frontier. It’s also easier when you’re a follower.
It is clear from the beginning that the Chinese Open Model are a proxy for economic warfare. Anyway their singular goal is to dethrone US monopoly on SOTA model and burn all the economic hype and investments. If this strat works, which we will see after Anthropic/OAI IPO, we'll be in for an interesting ride
Well, what can I say? If you play dirty, then so can everyone else. The way I see it, consumers are the real winners here. Just another variation of classic competition. If such open models didn't exist, then make no mistake, OpenAI and Anthropic would be making sure you are bleeding dry with your wallet without much innovation.
Sure, any day now DeepSeek is going to destroy the valuation of OpenAI and Anthropic. I've been hearing this since DeepSeek first launched in Jan 2025, 21 months ago. And with every new model generation, both open and closed, I hear a chorus of "this is now good enough!". And then I hear it again for the next generation.
Meanwhile OpenAI has grown their revenue like 10x and Anthropic has grown theirs like 65x in that same time period.
There's no cap on what you can do with frontier intelligence, nor how much of it you can use. Yes, DS and other open weight models will continue to grow like crazy (as long as they can source compute), but so will the frontier labs. I ran like 20 agents overnight last night on Opus, Fable, Sol, and Astra last night, trying to use up quota before my weekly reset, and I'd gladly have done 10x that much and used agents 10x more intelligent if I could have. And in six months I probably will.
I don't see how this proposition holds. It's just part of an inference engine for serving DS4.1 Flash. Which vLLM and SGlang can already do. Less efficiently, I'm sure, but on much broader hardware, and with other models in the mix.
People will take the novel bits here and port them to the above. The community as a whole will benefit. Including infrastructure engineers inside OpenAI and Anthropic.
But a lot of what's in here is already in published papers out of DeepSeek already.
A better interpretation is that there is a window within which you can make money on an unconventional view. You can't be too close to the market's conventional wisdom, but you can't be too far away from it either.
Valuations mean nothing to me, I'm not in the investor class that gets to buy and trade before IPOs, nor do I plan on putting a big share of my wealth in tech behemoths that everyone else is hyped by.
Rather than caring about whether it's over for western providers, I look at what competitors for the western providers have been doing since their first moment in the spotlight. And what I see is that their offerings keep getting better and better, and that at the same time they're opening not just their weights but their architecture and experience.
As a customer (rather than a pundit), I just like their tools and the user experience more than I do those of hte US giants. I admire the US offerings in many respects, but also find the user experience has a lot of friction and annoyances. Deepseek et al don't always deliver the same immediate 'wow factor' but when I sit down to build something, I enjoy using their tools. After 40 years of using computers for fun and profit, I will always always bet on a product that's fun to use.
No, that's open source and it will be an accelerator for everyone, instead of a small advantage kept by a few. Even the frontier labs benefit. I'd argue (like I did when the initial DeepSeek was released), that the AI market *needs* to those inference breakthrough.
how? openai can copy some of the ideas on top of their own. Smaller labs gain this tech without much development, but is isn't like they will magically beat frontier labs. Is a smaller deal than you think vs kami kaze.
Through my broker online for a couple thou or do I need big money for a sit-down agreement? Apologies, this is an instrument I didn't think existed to the retail market.
Michael Burry burned through tens of millions of dollars on holding his position. Others enter later but still ahead of the collapse. They knew and they didn’t. And even if Michael Burry new exactly when, he had to convince his investors that the millions they were losing leading up to it would get recouped.
Deepseek came out of a hedge fund, right? Do they just bet against US stock and release for free a pile of stuff that basically shatters them? I never seen anyone saying that, but it would be an awesome business model.
I hope more hedge funds start doing that. Basicaly funding open development to profit from tanking uptight super serious American stocks, to fund even more open development.
If you can't beat them, give the common folk means to skip them and profit from their fall.
Considering how absurdly far ahead of everyone else SpaceX is, 2T seems low, and is more of a testament to how immature the space market itself is at this time.
If SpaceX was reset to 2016, they would still be ahead of everyone else even today. Their deployed capabilities today are ahead of the plans of most of their competitors.
even if they are far ahead, where does the revenue come from? current market size is like 20-40 billion annually.. even if it grows to 2x it's still a long time until that would justify the valuation.
but perhaps you are thinking that starlink is the key? sure probably a bigger market - but any market it accesses is bound to eventually prefer ground lines.
so the only way to justify the valuation is if the AI side of the business becomes the most dominant AI business
It doesn't make sense by any standard valuation metric. Yes SpaceX is the best company in the world at getting things into space. The valuation doesn't reflect the actual size of that market at all. It's assuming AI in space will be world-changing, which is a huge leap to make.
Where are the competitor to the big frontier labs? The Chinese providers are demonstrating everything can be done cheaper and practically identical. I'm surprised upstarts aren't showing up.
If Anthropic is going to crash 50% or more at some unknown time in the next two years, and you have foreknowledge of this, you can easily make a massive profit by placing a bet weekly. The odds are VERY long per week, so on each losing bet you only lose a tiny amount, but on your winning week you will more than make up for it.
Timing is, as a general rule, important. In the particular case we're discussing, the odds of a 50% swing are so low that you can tolerate being VERY wrong on the timing if you are correct on the swing.
This assumes all other information remains exactly the same as it is currently. That is not how the real world works, however. As time goes on, and it becomes more obvious that the company is floundering, the "long shot" will no longer be such a long shot, and will not have as high of a return.
idk, if "prediction markets" remain a real thing, there should probably be some requirement for previous experience in options-adjacent markets to ensure people actually understand the economics of time-valued positions.
Can you say more? Why would the inference engine be the secret sauce that would protect trillion-dollar valuations? Isn't the inference side somewhat of a known-quantity, while the training is more of the lab's trade secret?
> That's Kami Kaze for US frontier labs. There's no way from here for them towards trillion dollar valuations.
I don't understand the reference to Kamikaze in this context. Is Deepseek destroying itself in order to deep-six US frontier labs?
The term is used generically in modern warfare for an attacking vehicle which is itself destroyed when attacking a target; for example, a kamikaze drone. [0]
Has anyone figured out why Chinese billionaires are releasing these models? Do they hold short positions on US markets? Why would Xiaomi, et al. release these models in the first place? What is the strategic purpose here? I cannot believe for a second that they are doing it for human good.
Deepseek started as Liang's side project funded with his hedgefund couch change compute. That set the economics for everyone else in PRC. If deepseek releases for free because Liang doesn't give a shit about making $$$ on his hobby, every other PRC player has to follow. And serendipitously, due to US export controls, PRC tech companies can't dig themselves into ruinous seppuku debt buying compute even if they wanted to - what they can buy, i.e. everything around DC infra including power, they get for fraction of the cost expediently.
TLDR Liang said fuck profits... which means every other PRC competitor had to fuck profits, which ends up fucking profits of western labs so deep in debt due to rampant financialization and can not afford to say fuck profits.
Sometimes a billionaire is fine just burning $$$ on a hobby while remaining a billionaire instead of trillionaire, and it just so happens the side effect might mean preventing others from being trillionaires as well. Bonus others is geopolitical adversary who is hedging economy on trillion $$$ returns.
I'm still not understanding why one hobby projecing being open source means others should also be open source. So you're saying that PRC is making a bet against US companies and the US markets to crash them in order to stifle the US economy? That is an interesting take, I would think the US market is far more resilient than just the tech stocks. Speaking with my communist friends though, it does seem like this is the ultimate goal: Topple the US hegemony and US foreign control by crashing it's economy while China makes a bet on free/cheaper AI models, with the ultimate goal of agitating the people enough to cause a revolution to turn the US into a communist state (really delulu stuff if you ask me)
Seems kind of pointless? Wouldn't anyone in the US/western world simply use the chinese models in their own inference? That would not strengthen the Chinese position because the models got downloaded for free off HuggingFace, and then cloud inference bills would just put money into US companies.
Ignoring all the slop out there, we are seeing AI being sent to reverse engineer, accelerate projects, etc.
According to Greek economist and former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, an open source AI strategy is one way a capitalist economy can avoid the rent trap (platforms being created, monopolizing resources, and extracting ever higher rents from everyone else).
One person's hobby started the industry in PRC and set the trend and inspired talent in nascent field with no established business model. PRC competitors didn't want to FOMO and just knew they had to compete with opensource and everyone fast followed. They bought what limited compute they could, hired what talent they could and just told them get to work. There's a reason even Chinese Uber / DiDi was releasing open source models. There wasn't some grand coordinated posture to compromise US markets, it's incidental to PRC industry being PRC industry. Very few in PRC thought they could close gap this fast with compute deficit. US chose to continuously dump venture $$$ and company warchests quarter after quarter on their own to increase exposure. There's no grand conspiracy to turn US into communist state (wut), there is not "bet", just typical PRC domestic involution business shenanigans clashing with US financialized VC shenanigans. In alternate world if PRC models not competitive, open source wouldn't even matter to US valuations. In alternate world if PRC models competitive and US AI isn't leveraged to shit to multiple % of gpd, i.e. systemic contagion risk, it also wouldn't matter.
It doesn't matter if US/west makes $ off PRC models, PRC doesn't have enough indigenous compute let alone spare to meaningfully compete globally. In so much it matters economically (again happy happenstance for PRC) is denying US AI making $$$$$ while spending $$$$ vs US AI making $ while spending $$$$. Extra happy happenstance that $$$$ US spending on is basically all the VC money and FAANG warchest stockpiled by US tech over decades... i.e. US spent so much that it meaningfully constrains private money to spend more in future. Meanwhile PRC AI spending $ to make $ (or less), but still have $$$ in reserve for other shit. It also doesn't help that half of business model depends on building infra on tight schedule that US is... not great at.
Yup. Hyperscalers are going to eat them alive. AWS/Azure/GCP hosted instances of cheaper-but-almost-as-good models like Deepseek are going to eat OAI and Anthropic alive.
They'll need to release cheaper, better models to compete. Which may not be possible.
Interference optimization is a solved problem with no moat. Anybody can achieve this result, optimize for a particular hardware, optimize for a particular problem. In general, software is no longer a moat.
The moat is custom inference hardware, lower power, higher throughput, etc.
There will always be special demand for the "best possible" and "fasted around" inference and they will pay. "Good enough" models are useful for many tasks but cannot replace the whatever frontier is at the time. That's why the top 2 labs are rake in ~80% of total inference income.
This is not to rebut your point, but I think for a lot of people/teams the silicon valley "lose money until we make money" pricing from OpenAI and Anthropic will continue to win (assuming the numbers below aren't completely off).
I'm out of my league on knowing if these ChatGPT projections are close, a little off, or way off, but we currently pay about $5k per month for Claude for our whole team. The projection for "run Deepseek on AWS to replace Claude" is coming in at $30k+ for GPU hours.
Well deserved too! The chutzpah of trying to peddle the AI equivalent to knives which refuse to cut flesh because it might be human flesh... astounding, and utterly disrespectful to their customers. Claude's guardrailing was so bad during OpenAI's HF attack that HF had to go to Beijing!!
I'm hoping Anthropic and OpenAI drop like stones on IPO. Never thought that liberation in this space would come from the Chinese!
I was just adding a citation to your point, not arguing against you :)
also adding what other stuff aren't included in the release, and implicitly pointing out that they explicitly mention it's not included rather than it being stealthily missing.
I think the reason DeepSeek does this is partly to neutralize competitors' technology, but ultimately the core reason might be that data is what matters.
Interesting how a comment asking about the reasoning behind releasing this as open source is getting attacked, as if doing a good thing should not ever be questioned. I do wonder of China's motives behind this as well.
The government would not allow this open work if it did not benefit them somehow, or perhaps they feel that keeping it closed is not very important right now (maybe because they are somewhat behind the frontier).
Comparing a university student Torvalds and state actors open sourcing code is pretty naive...
You seem to severely overestimate the level of centralised command-and-control in China. It's not like every software company is going to the government for explicit sign-off of every open source release.
There is a pretty clear benefit to DeepSeek's reputation for all the other providers offering DeekSeek's open-weights model to have similar performance/benchmark scores.
In the past performance has varied wildly across inference providers, making this available should result in every inference provider implementing the same optimisations
Certainly no more heavily than the US polices its own "assets" - we also have export controls on inferencing hardware, review periods on frontier model releases, export bans on Fable/Mythos, etc.
It's pretty evident from their actions that China doesn't consider this an arms race in quite the same way a lot of the US crowd does. Rather it's an economic conflict: one in which flooding the market with cheap inference might bankrupt a bunch of over-leveraged US tech firms (and in doing so put serious brakes on the whole US economy)
The other benefit is that as more of the stack is open sourced we can finally see just how cheaply these models can be served. Which in turn gives us insight into what the frontier labs might be doing.
Every open source release is visible to me, too. Is your point that the government could stop it if they wanted? That's true of every government, but it's not a problem until it actually happens.
> 7% of Chinas total population are members of the CCP. 7%. So at DeepSeek there's a good few handfuls of them.
If you want a government job, you need to be member of the party. That is no different then the old USSR system.
You end up with a overcount of "members" as people who ideology subscribe to the system, vs people who just become members for the better jobs. And yes, those people also get fired or leave government jobs (especially given the financial issues in the local governments the last few years because of the building crisis / lack of income).
So this type of throw towel over everybody to make a point is just a useless statistic.
Of course it matters. Suppose because tech pays better the figure in tech is more like 0.7%. The rest is shut concentrated in rural regions and other industries. Then your point would be moot wouldn't it.
> If you want a government job, you need to be member of the party
Do you know this? Or do you assume this?
I actually don't know. However, being from (west) Germany and old enough I know how a real socialist state, the east german GDR, handled it. And keep in mind that they were way more stalinistic than China is.
In the GDR you could have government jobs without being in the SED. In November 1989 they had 2.1 million members. Since the GDR had a population of 16.4 million, a whopping 12.8%. That a higher percentage than in China. And yet they had numerous even higher officials that weren't in the SED. Example "Hauptbuchhalter" in the combinats (some kind of main bookkeeper --- but keep in mind that their job was to follow the planned economy goals, not booking activa and passive). Or members of the central bank. Or lots of teachers (which in both Germanys are traditional official clerks ("Beamte").
They however couldn't be in (open) opposition to the system. There was "the sword of the party", the SED. And they had informants everywhere. So if you showed any sign of opposition, you were removed.
So you needed to be a "yes sayer", but being "SED party member" was not mandatory.
In China one can enter civil service without party membership.
Because membership in the party is strictly quota-ed to prevent overgrowth. The quota for college students is very limited.
But I assume any leadership position will require joining the party after becoming civil servant / government job.
> On October 16, 2026, the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Science and Technology issued Announcement No. 48 of 2026, publicly solicited opinions on the revision of the China Export Prohibition and Export Restriction Technology Catalogue (hereinafter referred to as the Catalogue), and implemented temporary management measures for pre-export registration of relevant technologies. Recently, the spokesman of the Ministry of Commerce answered questions from reporters on relevant issues.
That's true and the Chinese vendor market for most things is sufficiently decentralized that individual vendors do act with a lot of self-interest rather than government-interest, but it would strike me that a provider whose key operatives are travel-controlled by the government of the place they live in are not in that category. I imagine having your passports held by the Chinese government assists in alignment.
This is based on a video seen on Facebook, so take it with a grain of salt.
AFAIK, BYD batteries are based on "bad" materials, with fabrication method perfected until they are competitive [enough(?)] with batteries made with the "good" materials.
The good stuff is patented, locked by the West. China workarounds it. It's not that it is "bad", is just copying West's strategy doesn't work for them.
This seems like a garbled retelling of the shift from NMC batteries to LFP.
The latter are worse on some dimensions, so much so they weren't considered viable for cars in the West. But incremental improvement saw them take over the Chinese market. A classic "low end disruption" story.
They bought up the patents from A123, and American firm with a Taiwanese American MIT researcher founder. The firm floundered in the global financial crisis, a time that is a big inflection point for China's global domination of green tech.
The problem with that theory is that BYD and a few other Chinese companies already for some years have had batteries that are better than anything made in the West, from the point of view of energy density, charging rate, temperature range, cost, so if there is some stuff that is patented and locked by the West, that is the bad stuff.
Living in the EU, I find it concerning that China has advanced so much in battery technology and in the West there are very few positive signs of attempting to keep up with them.
Closing your eyes and imagining that others are not really better, when they are, is not the right strategy to avoid remaining behind.
So what makes you think it's not Chinese nationals attacking those comments?
Please never forget that US runs the largest state-sponsored hacking program. They are and have always been the largest APT. Anything opposing that narrative is blatant propaganda.
RE motivations - I wonder whether this is part of their push to double down on social stability efforts?
I have no strong views on whether US or Russia or China are the biggest hackers (and think it's impossible to k ow or judge objectivel) but feel compelled to point out that you seem convinced without evidence and proactively attack any replies contradicting you ("everything else is propaganda").
This is neither good discourse style nor does it help the accuracy of your own worldview to proactively decry and dismiss every contrasting position as propaganda. It's a surefire way to maintain incorrect worldviews and while it may hell your confidence does not make your positions true.
Kind of says that internal China competition is more intense than from America. I think there is both, but I would say it isn't like the "whole state" is backed against "us" in AI.
For comparison, rental prices seem to be ~$2.75/ per H-100-hour [1]. Meanwhile, Deepseek says "38 USD per hour per card”. They haven’t specified which card as far as I can tell.
I would love to read the details about how datacenters do load managing across such diverse hardware, if in fact they really are plugging in any computer hardware they can get on the market. Like how do they balance and serve an even customer experience across a wide range of hardware... is it by clustering similar hardware together?
Can somebody explain like I'm five what this exactly is? How are providers like Fireworks or Novita providing inference today? Do they use some other inference engine software? If yes, what is the advantage of the DeepSeek inference engine?
For the most part each provider implemented their own inference engines. This release will help them all adopt the common set of optimisations to serve DeepSeek Flash optimally.
Well except that baseten serves deepseek faster than this already at a lower price. So this seems to mostly help startup inference providers that don't have their own inference engines.
uhm...wake me up when I can buy one(1, single, uno) GPU to upgrade my PC so that I can play modern games with high graphics, without feeling like I'm being bled dry.
y'all got dozens of H100 at home? isn't that ~300k??
But in that vein, you are in the same position as the chinese LLM providers. They cannot get hardware to host so they put the problem in the forefront by offering it open.
maybe in 2030 i'll have a chinese gaming PC with chinese local AI. would be interesting to see if they can do the same to US tech companies as they do to european car manufacturers. i'm ready for it...
Anybody could fire up vLLM now to do exactly what you're talking about. And they do? There's dozens of places hosting DS4.1 Flash, at good speeds. So I'm not sure what your point is.
What this provides is the give contributors to vLLM, sglang, etc. a reference implementation of some of DeepSeek's own hard-won inference serving techniques.
No doubt we'll see patches to vLLM inspired by bits in here.
I recently got Claude Max 5x, after using ChatGPT Pro 20x for a while, and I find the Claude Max value really good. For $90/m, the weekly usage is great AND you get $100 of API credits per month too.
Anyone who compares DeepSeek to Claude can't be taken seriously. I'm rooting for open-source models of course but DeepSeek is so much worse than Claude, it's not comparable.
Do they really need since they are already cheap, make apparently profits with interference and API costs follow the usage? Monthly plan doesn't have much benefits for them, if most would be power users anyway? Only reason is to get more users on the platform, but people already get there, anyway.
What do you do to make it not refuse cybersec related activities? Sometimes it refuses to even scan my own codebase for vulnerabilities which is bizarre.
Start monthly plans... so we can pay _more_? Lol. I've moved >80% of my daily coding usage to deepseek-flash, and at their current token pricing it's effectively free. Any monthly plan would almost certainly increase the cost.
They use your data for training though. Mostly I'm fine with that, but you do need to be mindful of what traffic you send their way.
You could consider going with OpenCode Go for 10$.
The value you get is claimed to be 80$ in DeepSeek v4.1 Flash API value.
I use that and so far it is good for me.
Some claim they run a different quant but I so far don't see that.
Dax has said time and again they don't quantize the models they offer. Assuming they trust their upstream providers (I don't think believe they run their own inference) and we trust them, what you get with OpenCode Go is exactly what you'd get from the DeepSeek API.
I am personally a very happy OpenCode Go user. $10 month has never felt more useful.
Supporting Huawei Ascend 950 NPUs with open source inference code has huge implications in the global AI hardware market. Imagine if all smaller labs now can build on top of this stack and add increasing support for more compatible hardware , software and models. This could seriously challenge NVidias death grip. Although inference is still only a part of all AI workloads and open sourcing training on Huawei chips would be even bigger.
in terms of raw token throughput and serving users it is, but in terms of R&D and long term lab capabilities, training is still the goose that lays the golden egg
Even though their API price is cheap compared to OpenAI/Anthropic, I still can’t “afford” to use their API because the subscriptions from OAI/Anthropic provide far higher value and peace of mind—I know for sure how much I need to pay each month. I believe most developers fall into this category as well, where $20/$100/$200 from Anthropic/OAI provides more value.
This raises the question: why doesn’t DeepSeek provide a subscription service as well? Is it a better move to have a single pricing model like they currently do?
You know your subscription is unsustainably subsidised by debt and likely to change at any moment, yet relying on it provides more peace of mind than buying from someplace that are extremely transparent about their costs. That's an interesting approach to say the least
I'm not sure what you're on about. Load your account with X dollars and then your monthly bill is capped to X dollars.
or by 5 opencode subscriptions, and have $800 of ds4.1-flash for $200. I'm skeptical that the average dev will manage to burn through the equivalent of $800 of ds4.1-flash if they spend even a bit of time optimizing their token usage.
I did use deepseek via API and it can easily cost 3$ per day for my workload. On the other hand Luna 6 on 20$ OpenAI cover by usage for whole month. However, `ccusage codex` command suggested that my Luna6 token cost is around ~100$ monthly.
```
or by 5 opencode subscriptions, and have $800 of ds4.1-flash for $200. I'm skeptical that the average dev will manage to burn through the equivalent of $800 of ds4.1-flash if they spend even a bit of time optimizing their token usage.
```
This is my point. For most developer, subscription model (with subsidize) is preferable. And what I'm wondering is, as suggestted by very cheap cost-per-token from DeepInfer, why don't Deepseek persued subscription market as well ? What make subscription not make sense for them to provide ?
> On the other hand Luna 6 on 20$ subscription from OpenAI cover by usage for whole month. However, `ccusage codex` command suggested that my Luna6 token cost is around ~100$ monthly.
This is where the model comparisons become hard. Luna and DS4.1-flash aren't comparable models in terms of coding performance, DS is far ahead. Or at least so say the benchmarks. So if you're good with the performance from Luna, there isn't even really a reason to look at DS. You'd pay more for capabilities you don't need. But that doesn't answer your main point of, what to do if you DO needs DS4.1-flash performance.
> And what I'm wondering is, as suggestted by very cheap cost-per-token from DeepInfer, why don't Deepseek persued subscription market as well ? What make subscription not make sense for them to provide ?
By bet, given that they've introduced time-of-use pricing, is hardware capacity. They don't have the capacity to handle more demand, which is what coding plan would immediately produce.
I agree with this. While I realise the current subscription levels probably aren't sustainable long term for this month and probably next month, and who knows how many months after that, it is the best option.
I'm ready and willing to change as soon as I need to, but for the moment I'm going to take advantage of the subscription costs offered as it lets me know exactly how much I'm going to pay each month.
Maybe at a certain point their capacity is sufficiently being used up by the "full cost" API usage, and offering cheaper package deals would just cut into their profit because they can't get more inference?
I'm on an Alibaba Cloud Model Studio TokenPlan subscription, and DeepSeek 4.1 Flash, Deepseek 4 Pro are available, alongside various Qwen and glm models.
I've been using Qwen 3.8 Flash on an $18/month Standard Plan, and haven't gone close to consuming my credits. It got close to rollover date, and I gave it a decent nudge for 2 days, and used... about 2% of my monthly quota. Obviously one of the Max models could burn tokens a lot faster, but I'm very happy with the outputs one of the Flash models has been generating.
I need to give it something harder to do, it seems.
Even the Alibaba $6/month plan supplies a reasonable amount of API use, and Qwen 3.8 Max is a killer model for long time frame agentic use.
Literally everything I do is Open Source software and Open Content writing so I am fine with the lack of privacy using direct Chinese APIs. And, for a little more spend, just use US companies like Fireworks.ai or Ollama Cloud for more privacy, or run on-premise locally and get the best grade of privacy.
I do not think OAI/Anthropic make the biggest share of their revenue from subscription. The largest share is from API spends. That is what DeepSeek or others aim for as well.
Currently this is true only for Anthropic's $20/month plan. I do a lot of work without reaching my limit. OAI's similar plan on the other hand isn't worth it - it used to be a great plan in the begining when they needed to catch up, but now I reach my limit very quickly on it. The only reason I keep it is because my entire family is using this account for their chatgpt usage.
The more expensive subscriptions are just not worth it for individuals. Using deepseek even at API prices is better value. If you're a company it might be a different story.
This is fantastic. I feel the KV cache system is basically a must for any serious inference hosting, both for the provider as well as the consumer. I guess they have this but just haven’t open sourced it yet.
719 comments
[ 0.34 ms ] story [ 23.7 ms ] thread"Based on this framework, we have achieved high-throughput, low-latency large-scale inference services for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash. Currently, the service throughput of a single cluster is 155 trillion tokens/day, and the overall revenue is $38 per card per hour (at off-peak pricing)"
Source: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2095560295930508953
0: https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-oss-120b#providers
There is no reason to think inference can or will remain profitable even if you assume pure-play inference providers who don't do any model training. Serving an LLM isn't child's play but it's also not so hard as to count as a moat. Inferencing is:
1. Selling a largely undifferentiated product.
2. Into a highly competitive market.
3. To customers who are primarily sensitive to price.
Industries like this have always existed and in the modern era tend to have margins of about 3% to 5%. Any level of margin higher than that gets competed into the ground.
If you want to claim inference is highly profitable in general, you're going to have to answer why it won't end up like supermarkets or airlines, both of which have bigger moats than inference.
The other problem with this analysis is obviously that you can't just stop training models. Even if you don't care about improving capability or performance, the knowledge in their weights gets stale. Cost of inferencing has to take into account the ongoing cost of training, you can't cleanly split one from the other.
- I don't... "inference is profitable" is as of now. No one knows future, neither have I commented anything on it.
The statement is valid as it stands.
Because LLMs are like crabs, they all get to the same point.
Boosters are right that AI is a historically impactful product, but big labs will be unable to meaningfully profit from ushering in the AI era just like Netscape failed despite ushering in the internet era.
Name a company with a currently high profit margin on inference. I can't.
Investors want to invest in OpenAI and Anthropic because they hope that they will create AI that is much much more powerful than the AI they have now. The fact that they already have a substantial revenue stream helps, but it helps mainly by lending credibility to the claim that they might create something much much more powerful.
It's not a huge problem for users but if margins are low it's a huge problem for the debt funded datacenter buildout. It's just pure finance at that point, about whether those GPUs can generate enough yield to beat deprecation and financing costs.
The big clouds generally don't sell compute at high margins. The margins differ a lot between services. Services like core VMs and object storage are usually low margin or even break even. Where they make the money is things where they've got proprietary software with competitive advantage, like managed scalable forks of Postgres, or egress charges that are there to create lockin. Managed DBs are pure SaaS and can generate SaaS like margins.
We're also starting to see efficiency gains, so we might meet halfway.
Not to say it can't still be a bubble, just that there is legitimately profit to be had and perhaps some sustainable equilibrium in the future.
If the only profit is from running commodity free software (as OP claims), there's no moat and OpenAI/Anthropic are worthless.
It's unclear that the leading open-source models could exist without having distilled the frontier models. If that's true, the "danger" is that these upstream models don't get built any more (because of the tremendous cost), and we end up just optimizing what we have. Also unclear whether this would be a net win or loss for humanity.
The tremendous cost is matched by the tremendous business output.
In the span of less than five years, starting from their first $1 of revenue, Anthropic + OpenAI will have produced businesses doing at least $150 billion in combined sales. The demand isn't reducing at present, it's climbing, they can't come close to servicing the total demand for their frontier models.
SAP is under $40 billion in annualized revenue. They're 54 years old.
Market captured. Whoops.
Uber now: $55b in sales, $6.7b in op income. They won.
And to be clear, OpenAI can easily permanently subsidize a fake low cost for their LLMs if they get off their asses and attach a monster ad network to GPT already. They're years behind where they should have already been with ads, the easy money made it so they didn't have to think about it. If they miscalculate the timing on switching over from easy money (market) to ads (also easy money) it could certainly kill them.
OpenAI can knock out a lot of competition by building the largest ad network, then undercutting the cost that consumers see. The margins in ads make that possible. Google already knows how that works, they're doing the same thing right now.
I'd rather have the OpenAI + consumer base + ads position, than being Anthropic. China is a far, far larger threat to Anthropic over time. OpenAI is building a service business more comparable to what Google does. Chinese models don't actually threaten either OpenAI or Google insofar as their positions are user capture based, whereas constantly improving Chinese models are a never-ending threat to Anthropic.
Lots of companies have used this strategy. And many of them have indeed died. Uber filled a void left by bad public transportation and a lackluster cab system. The higher prices (so they can turn a profit) are still worth it to some.
> OpenAI can knock out a lot of competition by building the largest ad network, then undercutting the cost that consumers see. The margins in ads make that possible. Google already knows how that works, they're doing the same thing right now.
And you think OpenAI can compete here? If LLM's end up being yet another ad funded platform, I have a hard time believing Anthropic or OpenAI will outperform Google here. Maybe if one of them strike a deal with Apple, or get bought by them. Otherwise, ads are Google's bread & butter. And, they own Android.
Danger? You mean benefit?
I think that "everyone" needs some kind of an asterisk. Who's "everyone" in this?
Same with a lot of their investors, who will be just fine without the "insane profits" they hope for.
I'm not worried about their welfare, and won't shed a tear if their companies collapse.
Is the theory here that it would trigger more widespread financial meltdown?
Then I would prefer it to happen ASAP before they get even bigger.
The cost of amortising a datcenter, the gpus, the engineering costs attached all to produce inference.
At how much percentage of its inference would it be profitable (if it does), how much returns would it make over the long term and what would be the profit of those inferences/ profit-revenue and how that compares to other industries.
Are there any statistics which show this. Also how efficient token inference has gotten over time?
My workflow is one where I am heavily involved in the process and I don't like giving the agent too much autonomy + I need to follow along. Opus 5.5 speak is still cause aneurysms for my brain. It also has this vibe to its prose... like it's looking down on me. This is Prolly my bias speaking though.
I was doing the same (along with GLM 5.3 Flash) for months, and then gave Claude Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort a try. The difference was like night and day. Where both DeepSeek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash kept making mistakes and would have to do a bunch of iterations to find and fix them, Claude Sonnet 5.5 just did it right on the first try.
In my experience, while DeepSeek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash are a lot cheaper per token, they're just as or maybe even more expensive when you factor in all the extra tokens that are need to troubleshoot and fix their mistakes -- and even more expensive if I factor in my own time wasted doing the same, not to mention the frustration of having to deal with that.
DeepSeek 4.1 Flash also hallucinates a lot.[1]
I'm hoping all this improves with time, and the gap between the competent frontier models and open weight models narrows.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dTq4X8bqk
Quick, someone point out the one billion user system with intent + personal data rich that doesn't result in a $100+ billion high margin ad network.
It is that simple and absolutely nothing can stop the gigantic ad networks that will be built up around personal agents.
Current CPM is between $30 and $60 which is x20 to x30 more expensive than alternatives.
Now we have to wait and see if performance is also at least 30x of previous ad targeting.
Facebook is toast, sooner than later, as a business. Whatever gradually replaces/upgrades that quasi dead friends network, will be premised on AI (Zuck apparently thinks it's at least in part personal agents). In the present Meta still has a $228 billion ad business that is hyper profitable.
Google + Meta = ~$650 billion hyper margin ad business. OpenAI, aka LLM as a service for the masses, is going to want to take as much of that as they can. OpenAI's active user base comes at an attention cost to the other mega services like FB or Google Search, and ultimately that attention is worth ad dollars. The question is only whether OpenAI can take it, not whether it's there at all or high value. And of course there's no guarantee that it'll be ChatGPT upon which the next great ad network is built, it will be some AI-centric business however, and likely heavily involving LLMs.
Google's operating income last quarter was $40 billion. If OpenAI fails to take the mass market + ad tandem, then Google will more likely retain their position. The solution to the cost is already well understood by eg Google: the masses don't need tip of the frontier AI capabilities, and relying on Nvidia's extremely over-priced GPUs is a dumb business model. The biggest threat to OpenAI right now is Nvidia's margins, not China. Google's focus has been on high quality cheaper AI systems for a reason: they're looking to serve billions of people that have no use for what the bleeding edge offers vs a fast + good mid-tier. Google can do that in a highly profitable way.
You can't get the first and you can't get the money for the second. Nobody is going to give you $100 billion to underwrite the cost of competing with GPT at a one billion user scale (or even a 100 million user scale). The easy money is already drying up, the field is set, and you will not be able to get anybody to give you a huge check to attempt to chase OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, China. That's already over. No VCs will fund you on this particular business pursuit.
You couldn't meaningfully compete with OpenAI and Anthropic if you wanted to. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
There's a trillion dollar valuation waiting for you. What's up?
Even nation-state pockets Microsoft can't compete. If there were no moat, Microsoft would have their own GPT killer, and GPT would be dead. Microsoft has $160 billion per year in op income. They can freely afford to spend more than the entire EU (is willing to) on AI matters if it makes sense. They can't compete no matter how much they spend and they know it.
Google has nation-state money. They have chips. They have software developers by the zillions. They have a frontier or very near frontier model in Gemini / Argon. They invented a lot of the category. They can't kill GPT. I repeat, no matter what Google has thrown at the matter, they have failed to kill or stop GPT.
Google can't beat them. Microsoft can't beat them. China's models haven't stopped them (DeepSeek was supposed to kill them years ago; Kimi was supposed to kill them).
That's one helluva non-moat. They must just be really lucky.
You might as well claim Coca Cola has no moat because it's just sugar water. Brand at scale is a large moat. People use what they know unless you severely disrupt them. They're being taught to use GPT, they know GPT, and so long as OpenAI doesn't screw it all up, people will just keep using it. To say nothing of the fact that GPT still has one of the elite frontier models, so you also still have to compete with them on quality.
For such workflows it barely matters which of a dozen models gets used.
Whereas if you're handing off all dev and no longer reading code, just making CTO-level architecture decisions, then there are only 2~3 models right now worth using, none cheap.
I use frontier models every day and night, but not sure if the described approach is possible with any of them right now. Models still make stupid mistakes and people who do not read the code produced are bound for surprising discoveries in their codebase. Not trying to downplay the effectiveness of LLM-assisted coding and all that, but it's hard to imagine how much stupid shit i would've committed if I was not reading their output.
I used to find real dumb bugs in code reviews. With 2-3 different models doing a combative code review.. most of that is already fixed when I get it.
Another problem is that review changes can easily introduce new issues, so my review prompts go like that: if you find outright shit, fix it right away, but if you have slightest concern, just write your ideas and suggestions in the review and let me decide then. I try from time to time to omit the "slightest concern" part and make agent do all the shit it wants, and usually end up reverting those changes.
But as the sibling comment said, not all code needs quality and indeed I skip some code too, like user playwright journeys -- I only need one auto review pass to verify they indeed test things according to a doc, and I'm fine not reading them. Not all code like that though, some stuff would wreck havoc later if its not looked at.
For the past year or two I think it has generally been agreed that inference is profitable, but the LLM business as a whole is not.
But it's clear that it's not the money burning pit I think it was just a year ago.
Consumer get the cheaper energy, while industry normally get the twice as expensive energy.
But for AI/Datacenters, there is a exception and they get the cheaper consumer level energy.
You need to take in account that the way China taxes is not the same as here in the West. And a lot more is put on the local governments regarding generating their own revenue (why there was so much building in China because those projects funded local government). A bit of a side topic lol. Its not so simple as they are making a loss on something because how its structured.
AI gets the cheaper tariffs then the rest of the industry, that is a fact. They simply have less energy profits on the AI energy. Now if you consider that subsidized or not, ... in both cases China is still making a profit.
What is overlooked is the massive amount of energy generation that China has and still keeps expanding. And that is a direct reflection upon why the prices for industry and consumers are so cheap. This buildout ironically had nothing to do with AI but was more about lower energy = cheaper industry production ... and a lot of buildout was also to build more independence from energy imports. They are not just throwing solar and wind turbines around like candy, the amount of reactors constructed and still under construction, ...
> China currently has 36 to 38 nuclear reactors under construction, maintaining the largest nuclear buildout in the world and accounting for roughly half of all global nuclear plant construction
So yea ... The AI in the west have a issue because it really does not matter if you cut China from Nvidia GPUs or advanced nodes, they compensate on the power level.
Edit: And a little extra, the irony is here in the West building nuclear is expensive as hell because we barely do one or two at the time. With a lot of lost expertise. China doing tons of them non-stop cuts down on the costs a lot.
Interesting. In Germany, industry gets the cheaper electricity...
China's electricity pricing involves cross-subsidies. Residential and agricultural users pay the lowest rates, which are generally below the cost of supply. Commercial and industrial users pay more and contribute the most of grid revenue.
Prices vary by region: commercial electricity can approach 1 RMB (0.15USD) in Beijing, but the national average is about 0.67 RMB (0.1USD), while industrial electricity averages around 0.63 RMB nationally.
as if electricity for spacex wasn't literally illegally installed gas turbines polluting the air
This idea that Deepseek needed to distil their way to success is nonsense. Its a great narrative for OpenAI and Anthropic to spread because Americans have been brainwashed for two decades into dealing with their own inadequacies by blaming things on scary asians stealing things.
In reality China is outworking and lapping most American companies. They produce 10 EEs to every 1 America produces. They are simply harder workers.
The West is cooked because we're too lazy to work hard and we'd rather make up stories about boogeyman who are stealing from us. The only thing we're good at now is killing people who economically challenge us.
Them provably distilling after being accused of distilling strongly indicates that... that's what they do. To spin a story of them not doing that (because why would they, with their superior talent and all) doesn't seem very reality conform.
The models are impressive enough as is (considering resource constraints and difference in CapEx) despite being heavily distilled from western frontier models. No need to pretend that they're not.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966016
[2]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
I think the more reasonable explanation is this is totally made up. Notice how they use examples concerning "cyber and bio" notice how the examples are politically loaded subjects that are hyper relevant to proposed AI dangers and why we need to protect western AI companies with anti-competitive regulations?
Oh no!!! The scary asians are distilling our models, but they only want the scary things!!! They want to hurt you!! We better stop the scary asians!!!
You need to up your media literacy.
Based on what? None of the accused companies have ever denied Anthropic's accusations. And here you are confidently claiming it all to be made it. How much of a reputational hit to one's honesty do you think it carries to completely fabricate someone doing something, when they can just publicly disagree and disprove you? First thing DeepSeek, Moonshot, etc. would do if they hadn't would be to make a press statement calling out Anthropic for their lies.
DeepSeek routing to Fable was corroborated by many independent sources... since... everyone was able to just try it out and see it for themselves.
> Oh no!!! The scary asians are distilling our models, but they only want the scary things!!!
The straw man you're mocking doesn't exist. Non-Chinese labs are also distilling frontier models of their competitors. Elon testified in court that Grok was trained on ChatGPT outputs. And why would they not? It produces objectively better models.
Not everything is a grand conspiracy.
You need better media literacy.
You cant just make up a reality where none of these companies have denied distillation.
The scary asians are going to get you, watch out! Your government is going to eventually tell you that we need kill a bunch of them too because they're so scary. Probably soonish. You're going to fall for it because you believe anything you're told.
These lies are then further supported publicly my western media, random people on twitter, western governments, etc., all to paint China as an evil force that must be united against. Again, in your words "Your government is going to eventually tell you that we need kill a bunch of them too because they're so scary."
And you have dozens of independent parties pushing that same lie to that end and for that purpose? Sure, that's what the New York Times and CNBC must deeply want too. When CNBC writes that they've reached out for comments to the accused companies, but received no responses, they must be lying as well?
It shouldn't be hard for you to demonstrate DeepSeek denying it. Please, go ahead, link to a statement. China's foreign ministry has denied Chinese labs distilling, and, in the same statement accused US labs of distilling from Chinese models. Now that's a very trustworthy claim.
I call it a conspiracy theory because it's a conspiracy theory. Some conspiracies are true, but this one is not. Distilling is both trivially simple and produces objectively better models. Plenty of evidence points to that practice. But in your mind the labs in China are just morally too upstanding in engage in such lowly tactics to create better models, despite the evidence. And it's convenient that the evidence can be explained away by claiming it to be a psyop to paint Chinese as evil.
Multi-turn conversations have much more entropy than one-shot responses, making it more useful to do synchronous distillation.
google is a company that tries to make a point of having profitable subdivisions
You pay for the asset (tenancy in a data center) and then you pay for housing, powering, cooling, etc.
Demand is the issue. Demand only spikes with a sota model release then in drops back down to unprofitable levels when factoring in training a new model and build out.
So your stuck in an unprofitable cycle of losing revenue when your not releasing sotas but losing profit when you are.
This goes back to googles original memo “there is no moat”.
Where in you can’t stop training sotas because you’ll lose customers to the next inference model above you instantly.
Google has seemingly defeated this by finding models cheap and good enough for their existing platforms resulting in a moat of distribution. Something OpenAI and Anthropic seems to lack.
I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while (I'm sure not all user accounts, but in aggregate).
The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads.
This is why the open source models are such a threat if they become good enough - it will destroy the business model of just providing raw chat/intelligence.
Arguably that's also why a few of these providers are trying to diversify into whole-platform approaches rather than just relying on having their whole thing be a great model.
I think the more someone works with AI the more likely they realize that inference does not have to be sold at a loss, but many people's AI knowledge seems quite dated and it sounds almost like it becomes a convenient conspiracy theory for some, a way to convince themselves that the market changes that are already happening a temporary (and I don't mean in a Jevon's paradox sort of way, but that companies will go away from AI).
I suspect a lot of this is fueled by a few stories of companies who went all in on spending as much as possible on AI and then begun to walk that back, without realizing that was more about bad incentives and over promises of what AI could do (especially 1/2 model generations ago). Some also confuse running the SotA models at the fullest capacity costing more and more with a given problem costing more and more to solve, not realizing that the cost per problems is trending down but newer and larger problems can be solved for even more, so the costs at the top are rising despite falling prices. Also things like the subscriptions getting more expensive, though how much of that is because developers are doing far more than they were 6 or 12 months ago (and in some cases there was subsidization that is going away). And maybe a bit with the free models starting to not be upgraded or the harnesses getting worse performance of lowered free limits.
The very short lives of all these models also factor in.
I think the funny thing is the more inference, the more tokens a specific version of a model spits out, actually does make it more profitable.
But somehow a lot of people truly think that each token generated increases the cost of OpenAI/Anthropic/... and shout bloody murder about "subsidies"
And I'm certain there are people out there that actually think the API prices of OpenAI and Anthropic somehow equal their electricity costs.
And that's the rub - it doesn't matter if inference is profitable, the US labs have promised the whole kitchen sink, and taken serious investment on that pitch. They won't make it back in a cut-throat market for inference. They have to continue pitching the idea that only their models are worth using, for quality/safety/performance/etc reasons.
Which means continuing to develop and release new models. At huge expense.
Side note - while deepseek seems to be doing fine, I'll note that the emphasis on cost effectiveness is very much not a thing for the US labs right now... and it was for non-us labs. I'd be quite interested in knowing if anthropic is pulling in the same returns, or what the margin on their subscription plans actually is.
---
I'm already seeing this directly at work - lots of devs still happily use claude for development, but the products we're making aren't. They'll use kimi, glm, gpt-oss, etc... basically - if cloudflare is hosting it, we're exploring it (mainly for contractual/security reasons): https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers-ai/models/.
Because we are price sensitive, and we already have to do all the work of creating very robust evaluation frameworks for our products, so we might as well choose the cheapest model that meets our standards.
whiiiiich is why we're seeing things like Haiku and gpt-luna priced down near the open models at ~.10/mm in, ~.50/mm out. They've been forced to cut prices to keep commercial customers on their cheaper models instead of moving away.
This will continue. If inference is profitable and easy, prices will continue to erode. Go browse openrouter, plenty of providers happy to undercut the competition. Bigger shops with auditing requirements will avoid them, but smaller ones won't.
I guess my question is when do we say a model is "good enough"? For my use cases Opus 5.5 feels as if it is exactly at that point. And at that point of course one of the main factors I will evaluate against is price. So far I am happy with my (heavily subsidized) subscription, but if the time comes, I'll happily switch the inference API any of my agents are calling. So far I have no big lock in on any providers.
But the under-reported corellary of this is that a TON of industries essentially operate on hardware right out of that time period (or slightly after, circa 2000s)
banking
Insurance
Healthcare
Gov
retail
Transportation
etc...
Hell, I was writing code to run on IBMs Z/arch as recently as 2021 for banks with mainframes deployed around 2004. They were just then finally considering an upgrade to the later models.
Because again - I think lots of businesses are already taking a good look at models well off the "cutting edge" because they're good enough for what that business is trying to do. They're already there.
If you're doing categorization, tagging, form-filling, customer support routing, etc... you don't need anywhere close to cutting edge expensive models.
Hell - Jev being so popular is basically exactly that group going "what's the cheapest way we can make this decision".
Meanwhile, there are plenty of spaces where you still want real model improvement. But a lot of traditional business was basically process and paper pushing. You don't need a Phd level model for that, you need an intern level model.
---
But that's the trap for the large providers - intern level models are cheap and easily available with current open weights. It's going to be a very tight market, and margins will go down to essentially the floor (especially once we exit the current constrained-compute market).
Somewhat ironically - the technology itself makes switching costs basically zero. It's not just that there's no big lock in, AI is like an anti-moat. It actively fills in and paves over whatever moat you might have for price conscious customers.
I also agree that more capable models are still desirable in plenty of spaces. I just see that there is so much lag in the diffusion of existing models, which, again, are already sufficiently capable.
To your point, I think we’re past the hump on the Pareto distribution. The models are good enough for most things, and the rate they’re improving at the things they’re bad at is dropping. The odds a new model is good at something the old one was bad it is okay, the odds it’s something you care about is dropping. It makes a lot of sense to discriminate on price rather than features in that environment.
Further, even if this is your take (and I won't touch the geopolitics here, maybe you're right, maybe you're not regarding ulterior motives) - go use non chinese open models that are also good.
Laguna, Nemotron, Mistral, Arcee, Llama, etc...
In organic capitalism you need to compel arrays of discrete private entities to invest in your idea. In sandbox capitalism, the money can just appear in any amount at the behest of a single controlling individual.
Less intervening and micro management but oh boy say something not nice about government and potus and suddenly you are a new enemy of the state and 3-letter agencies work day and night to bring you down for good. Or in reverse - put a public bribe to potus and his clan and enjoy some favors for few weeks.
2 years ago I would agree more strongly with you, but we are in new era from now on.
real-life, unregulated capitalism lends itself to exactly what you described
In actual capitalism, POTUS wouldn't have enough power to be worth bribing.
The problem isn't the money, the problem is the power.
Contrast that to US being happy with everyone eating each other alive until all but one company is left standing and can now dictate the prices and enshittify the product to pay back their VC loans.
I mean this is not the case for either, but the systems are setup to drift in these directions - a market needs some sort of regulation to keep things sane, otherwise you end up with standard oil and the like.
You want the people with guns controlling things to be at least nominally interested in “the people” and produce more than just “return on investment”.
Not saying that China is like this or that US is bad, but saying that China is bad because it is “controlled capitalism” is kinda missing the point of what it should be in the best case.
(But to be clear: 25-50% faster is still a big win in my book.)
But I'm also interested is retraining needed? how relevant will a model be in N years if it's just "static", and if you do need to retrain and fine-tune over time, is it still profitable? how often is that needed?
For most cases it's probably ok, often times answers are general or basically a web search anyways, but if my Agent started blasting outdated syntax it would suddenly be way worse for coding for example.
I have SO many cases, for example when shopping, when they make assumptions based on their cutoff date, and they need to redo everything based on lots of searches.
Sure, for many use cases old models will be useful but for general usage a model that's 5 years old will probably be garbage for most people, unless they prompt it extensively, which the general public won't do.
Just wait until what Ilya Sutskever has for Safe Super Intelligence (SSI) to self update the weights without retraining them to bring training costs down close to $0.
People that want to believe something different as a coping mechanism will not be swayed by this evidence either.
And with it, the cost of intelligence / digital services / much of white collar work is going to zero.
Looks like AI will be another revolution, and eventually, probably the largest.
People are saying _training + inference_ is unprofitable (I don’t have a dog in the race and don’t really care either way). That’s a lot of GPUs and salaries that aren’t generating revenue at any moment.
Personally, I would guess Anthropic and OAI are profitable. I just suspect that they’re a pretty normal level of profitable and not the absurd, near-alchemical “can turn dirt into gold” level of profitable their valuation seems to have priced in.
I honestly don't think there are too many people arguing "AI is actually too expensive to take my job". "AI being too much of a commodity to make meaningful profits" could very well be the case though.
They are literally hoping Anthropic & OpenAI go bankrupt (totally possible), and everyone goes back to using their meat brains for work (never happening).
In this context it just doesn’t matter if these companies are profitable after amortizing training cost, because deployment of open weight models that already exist will continue to disrupt economies for at least the next decade if all research ended tomorrow.
Even take account of R&D cost it is still profitable, because you do not actual retrain the base model every month, only distill and post train from the same foundation.
heck, I think even including the giant cost of the top tier researcher salaries, they are still profitable.
then, how are they still losing money? just read what they are actually spend the most budget: always the hardware. those companies will never profitable, because they will never stop spending money to expand their computational prowess.
Unfortunately while in the tech industry some might know that, the general public are still being misled (especially by certain folks who’ve made a living off downplaying AI) to believe inference itself is unprofitable.
It is wild how fast we're hurtling towards this outcome, lmao.
This is correct for now, but I recently read that 90% of Anthropic's code is written by Claude Code itself. So, if an AI is using its previous version to train the next version, we're not far from the day where these models will take up the decision making process too. For eg: Decisions API by OpenAI or Jev is based exactly on this. What if a model like Jev sits behind Opus 5.5 and guides it to take the next step? Wooh.
Probabilistic predictions right now are at 99% for frontier models. They will never be 100%, but if humans rate themselves 99.9% in decision making, that benchmark can be broken.
So if Claude Code is writing 90% of the code, then why are they keeping probably the most expensive engineers in the world on the payroll?
The machine writing all the code seems to not be enough, even for the company with access to the best models. What's the alternative to explain this discrepancy?
A lot of AI haters like Ed Zitron and their readers have refused to update on this. I don't know if any of them have yet, but it'll take a year or two for the idea to fully filter out of their podcasts anyway.
1. Their figures have been pretty dodgy or excluded training costs so why is it trustworthy this time?
2. API inference charged at a profitable level rather than heavily subsidised subscriptions means everyone tightens up their usage + governance Which we very much saw with the rise of openrouter et al.
Personally I think there's a lot of the bait and switch of 2 when people talk about profitability of the 10-20% of API usage for Anthropic while also wanting to lump in subsidised chat users as if they're profitable too.
I think we know if it was this clear cut then the behaviours of companies would be wildly different and more consistent with profitability.
It's not actually clear that subscription users are unprofitable as a group (and the group level is the only important one).
We do know the companies are not currently profitable, because they're open and intentional about that, but that tells us nothing about their margins without infrastructure buildout and investment in training.
> It's not actually clear that subscription users are unprofitable as a group (and the group level is the only important one).
[Open AI losing money on subscription users](https://fortune.com/2025/01/07/sam-altman-openai-chatgpt-pro...)
If anthropic were making money on subscriptions they wouldn’t be pushing people onto API + enterprise packages.
> We do know the companies are not currently profitable, because they're open and intentional about that
Why do they keep engaging in stunts like excluding infra costs then?
You are picking choosing to ignore evidence and actions when it suits you and then saying “oh we can’t possibly know” when we do absolutely know the problems of capital and debt raising on infrastructure problems (which are mostly not the Big Frontier labs either) there’s hard arithmetic for what’s needed to make these projects profitable. I feel like three strikes is enough disingenuity to be taken in good faith.
That's why so many talks about regulations. Regulations means: ban outside competition, just like US bans Chinese EVs today.
Have you seen any place that is not as tech-savy as HN? e.g. some Reddit subreddits?
Barely anyone is aware other than people who are already somewhat deep into this whole topic.
Also, what happens when the inference providers suffocate on their own debt burdens? Who will serve inference?
> The major providers are unprofitable after you add in the training and research costs and other overheads
It's meaningless to say that selling something is profitable if you are ignoring the cost to produce it.
The profitabiity (or not) of AI models needs to be calculated on a per model lifetime basis - what did the model cost to develop and train, what is the lifetime revenue the model generates, and what is the lifetime operational cost of the model (including amortized GPU cost), etc.
It makes no more sense to calculate "inference" profitability when ignoring training cost that it would to calculate it when ignoring GPU cost.
Hence "we need to slow down progress for safety" [narrator: it had nothing to do with safety]. The industry is begging for the regulation so that there is a coordinated slow down and consequently move towards profitability.
100%
Amodei has been promising the "end of the exponential" all year, when they can shift some compute away from cash-burning research and training toward cash-generating inference.
"Pacing the frontier" is how you collude with your competitors to all decelerate at the same time because safety.
I saw last week that Anthropic is currently cash-flow positive with 75% of compute going to research and training. If they can flip a switch and move from 3:1 to 2:1 or 1:1 training:inference, they will be insanely profitable.
As long as they can avoid a price war.
>> calculated on a per model lifetime basis
"Pacing the frontier" means every early model doesn't need it's own profitable P&L.
Early models can be big money losers, while helping build the next generation.
As long as at some point they can slow down.
If the industry can coordinate to all decelerate at the same time, then they'll flip from incinerating billions to minting billions, and all that capex will suddenly look completely sustainable.
Unless DeepSeek suddenly gives it all away for free, which is why the big three need government regulation to prevent foreign models from busting the cartel.
... and not worry about training cost at all.
a lot of the cloud businesses of the last decades have relied heavily on open source code, again skipping most of the cost to make the product/service being sold.
I.e., Langdock [0].
[0] https://langdock.com/
Don't enter that rabbit hole, you'd be surprised at how questionable are some accounting rules and practices, even in publicly traded companies.
At the same time, training costs don’t scale with usage, so no matter how expensive they are, they can be paid for as long as inference is profitable. It is only inherently unsustainable if you lose money on inference.
Of course, it could be that the inference usage required to pay for the training is too high to be possible, but that is a separate argument.
You missed the bit where they used the word "revenue".
I suspect if you factor in all the various overheads of running datacentres the actual value is lower. Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity as the old saying goes.
However the Chinese do have the benefit that China are pushing hard on renewable energies. So at least that major part of the equation is probably far lower than your average US/EU site.
The latter is great as a way of getting an edge in business and reducing reliance on oil supplies, but its also environmentally highly damaging.
Chinas grid is almost entirely renewable energy with strong investments in it. In the us not the case, some dcs are running on gas.
Also DeepSeek was smart. They strategically rolled out model sizes they could support even if the intelligence wasn't the world's best for that week in human history. Then they have incrementally and cheaply improved models since.
Not to mention they also built trust with open weight models rather then fear mongering. They are in the top 3 of the smartest most viable LLM labs out there.
They have more installed renewable capacity than coal, but renewables have low capacity factors, solar is less than 50% by definition. The renewable share is growing fairly rapidly, but it is by now means almost entirely renewable.
From microns S10: BITS shipped and net revenue.
Q1 '20 - $0.10 profit per gb shipped (ram and storage)
Q1 '23 - -$0.024 (cyclic ram market)
Q1 '25 - $0.131 this looks normal were on the upswing.
Q4 '26 - $1.136 Were all fucked.
If you look at a chart of S3 prices we have all been living in the "Happy Time" where the cost to run our ever growing software business has gone down. Githb says 2025 billion commits - 14 billion this year, and 2x the actions run. That means AI driven software growth is 2x to 14x.
But those ram/storage prices are going to hit the operational budget of EVERYONE soon.
Can your average sas survive a 4x price increase on its AWS/Azure bill? How about 10x (cause thats what the margins say the premium is on ram).
If the circular financing is a concern, the circular firing squad should be a bigger one. Your paying for tokens to build more software to pay more to run your software is not a sustainable cycle. People are starting to use the words CapEx again - and it's a good thing.
Present valuations are the bubble, not the business / industry. The exact same thing was true about the Internet bubble circa the late 1990s, except this is a lot more important than the Internet and the global economy is drastically larger.
Productivity is how you expand economy and wealth. It's how China can go from being one of the world's most backwards agricultural nations, unable to feed itself properly, to gradually becoming an agriculture juggernaut. AI is a hyper productivity tool, saving people time and bolstering capability are two of the primary productivity concepts.
We're not even out of the first inning yet.
Distribution of intelligence: data, photos, video, communications, transactions, entertainment, et al.
And to be clear, it doesn't matter if some random commentors on HN don't think very highly of some or all of the intelligence being distributed. Their elitist opinion of the quality of intelligence of a given thing doesn't matter as to whether it's happening or not.
When a 16 year old records a cloned TikTok dance video, edits it, and then publishes it, that's intelligence distribution. That's a person thinking through a series of actions to try to communicate to an end audience, via an entertaining medium. That's intelligence being distributed over the Internet. That's the quaint, slow, human form of it.
Up to this point that distribution was basically entirely human, capped (post saturation) at slow growth N intelligence output (derived from the total number of humans and their time / productivity capabilities). AI uncaps that and radically expands intelligence output & distribution at a growth rate that is so fast you might as well start picturing the planet having tens or hundreds of billions of people on it. The human population will shrink, the artificial population will increase dramatically. People will have more artificial friends than human friends within ~20-30 years.
A few decades from now the notion of thinking of computing separate from AI will be so foreign most people won't understand what you're talking about. It will just be thought of as computing. Humans will forget a time when we weren't augmented by the constantly presence of artificial intelligence. Try taking their 'smart' phones away from the masses. In about a decade try taking away their helper agents. A decade after that try taking away their home robots.
The steroid jump is AI + robotics. The Internet is trite compared to what comes out of that over the rest of this century. Robotics will physically remake our world, in a way the Internet can't. We'll deposit tens of billions of robots onto the surface of the planet and they will almost all be the result of having figured out how to make intelligence (relatively) easy & (relatively) cheap.
The information age is over. We're into the age of intelligence (insert the unavoidable quips about humanity & intelligence).
The Internet is just one way to move intelligence around. It's a sub value to intelligence broadly. Intelligence is the ultimate value. The valuations (and sales growth) for OpenAI and Anthropic is because they're vast intelligence output machines in the Age of Intelligence, ditto Nvidia's business boom.
That would be awful, presuming that the artificial friends are not people.
Separately, you might like Count to the Eschaton by John Wright with its ultimate project being "the sophistication of all matter".
Just as human intelligence is merely one form of intelligence, human companionship will be merely one form of companionship. AI friends will offer a new type. And for the masses it's going to feel very real and very legitimate. They'll like their AI friends as much or more than they like their human friends.
And the fake friend explosion can happen first quietly, which eliminates the initial shame phase problem. Nobody will have to know you have fake friends, or how much you interact with them. Until it's common it'll be viewed as shameful (pathetic, proof of social ineptness) and mocked by society, then it'll be normalized. This idea isn't novel, it's extremely obvious and right now we're just waiting for a few pieces of the LLM puzzle to get to the point where they're good enough to facilitate high quality artificial friends.
It'll happen shockingly rapidly when it sparks; slowly at first and then in the span of 3-5 years we'll go from nobody having or being willing to admit to having artificial friends, to everybody openly discussing it. It will then seem more odd to not have artificial friends, like people that refuse to own smartphones or use the Internet. People will start commonly referring to their artificial friends by name in conversations with other human friends. These behaviors will become entirely socially normal.
"Yeah I had Alice clean the house before I went on vacation." Every major personal robot, every artificial friend, will get a name. Humans name their vehicles, so they're definitely going to name their $10k-$20k house bot and the artificial friends they spend large amounts of time with. When you go on a long drive (etc), your artificial friends will be there to keep you company, and they will remember your life events as well or better than you do (if you give them access to that recording/memory capability).
huh. I can only think of one friend I've ever known who named their car.
Anyways, not saying I necessarily disagree with the rest of what you say, but it's out there, for sure. We're a good distance away from an AI that can meaningfully act like a friend.
(Though who knows what AI will look like in even 10 years? I'm not ruling this out)
And I am presuming that the companionship that people need is the companionship of other human beings. Otherwise, tamagotchi, fish, cats, dogs, parrots, and horses are already perfectly good companions. AI can help fill in for some of those other ones (tamagotchi especially), but it cannot replace human companionship.
The world will be filled with robots is not the inspired forward-thinking of a visionary it is the uninspired regurgitated science fiction of someone who doesn’t care to understand that the world is people, a society.
This is very different from what I see.
At coffee shops and on trains, sure, people are working or on their phones. But at dinner and parties, at bars and climbing gym and dances, we're there to be there with each other.
Maybe a cultural difference between where you are and where I am?
China will have many billions of robots just in their industrial efforts alone. Every house and every apartment in China will saturate with robots of various usefulness. That single market will be at least 10+ billion in scale.
There will be a billion robots for just the delivery and transport categories globally. We're going to peak at at least 10 billion humans (population), a billion robots for delivery & transport segments is easy.
In the toy category there will eventually be far in excess of a billion robots. They will seem quite advanced compared to what we presently are used to in that category. The Microduck is a primitive example of what will be a large industry around smart entertaining toys. Your artificial friends will be able to 'hop into' (take control of) your Microduck (whatever the 2035-2050 equivalent is) and cruise around the house or wherever you're at. Entertainment will continue to be a gigantic industry and that will obviously apply to AI + life. We haven't even begun down the road of AI + entertainment, it's less than early there.
Every household in the world will eventually have numerous robots, from primitive robots (including single purpose and toys), to advanced humanoid robots. It won't take longer than 2050-2060 to push $10k-$20k humanoid robots into middle class or upper middle class homes. China will put enormous pressure on the cost of those robots, and they'll mass sell them to the bottom 4/5 of the world in terms of household incomes (that is, they'll come up from the floor on price and take most of the market, while some companies in affluent nations will produce more expensive high-end humanoid bots, ala what Tesla is attempting).
Tens of billions of robots globally is easy. 200-300 billion artificial friends is also an easy prediction. Social junkies will have 50-100 artificial friends that they try to tend to. It'll largely replace platforms like Facebook, the utility that served for the average person. Humans will get a lot more isolated from each other and as that occurs they'll fill in the void.
I have spent time in China and Korea where attitudes towards artificial intelligence are much more positive than the west. I have interacted with robots in these countries.
You are making the fundamental mistake all nerds make. You’re thinking about what is possible and concluding that it is what will happen. Just as nerds believe that someday it will be possible for us to live on mars and therefore we are going to live on mars.
Humans are humans. Humans are interacting with artificial intelligence as if it is human because they crave human contact and are so desperate they settle for the best they can get.
The houses filled with robots future goes hand in hand with the robots will be doing all our work future. And if robots are doing all our work, what do humans have? Time. So much time. Humans become creatures of leisure. No longer is there a too little time to build relationships, there is only time, so much time. Human relationships become abundant, humans spend all their time being human.
The idea that people will have 50-100 artificial friends is so batshit crazy that I could totally believe your comment is parody.
How do you envision an "artificial friend"
But yeah, masses will do masses stuff and that's why even shit products can sell.
I would argue it will be 10x in 2-3 years the way things are going.
what do you think it is, out of curiosity?
$38/card/hr is a ton of money. That's $2.6 million per 8-card server per year.
These providers have very little incentive to charge unprofitable prices (except maybe capturing more of the market, but there's not much lock-in here), so it's reasonable to assume somewhere in that spread is the "true" cost of being in this business, all expenses included.
[1] I'm using https://gpus.io as a reference here, and that's on-demand prices, which will tend to be the highest relative to other options.
- If inference is this profitable, is it profitable enough to offset the enormous training costs, bot those already incurred and those in the future?
- If inference is profitable, can it cover other capital and operational expenditures the hyperscalers and neoclouds are committing to, on the timelines they're committing to, to scale out inference?
- If inference is profitable we can measure if the price/earnings ratio of current valuations is sane. Is it?
- If inference is profitable, is it - given the answers to the questions above - profitable enough to make the risks of lenders of the huge amount of debt companies are taking on to scale, rational? It's one thing to say as a hyperscaler "we can make this pay", it's another to say "I'm going to lend them the money to do that and I'm going to get my money back on the timescales we agreed, and with an ROI to boot".
- Finally, if inference is profitable why is Nvidia specifically lending money to companies to buy Nvidia cards to do that inference, and then hitting the credit default swap markets to cover the risk of never getting that money back, and doing so at ever increasing cost, when they could just go build a profitable inference business themselves?
I agree seeing the numbers is good. It does suggest profitability in some segment of the market. However I still have a lot of questions.
The US is dealing with different tax code where buying GPUs function as as great way to offset taxes, and having boatloads of debt is rewarded in many cases. I think there's lots more (crooked) reasons why inference is even more profitible in the US.
Most of your questions are things that are relevant to everybody due to a possible economic crash. And you are right to point this out.
But for me as an AI user those aspects are not really relevant in my decisions. If an AI bubble bursts providers will still want to sell me those tokens at that price and yes development will slow down for a time which does change not a lot for me.
Inference has always been profitable. The problem is that this profit shrinks as your model becomes less competitive. The labs are in a constant race to release the best model to maintain inference profit. Deepseek is not training their own models at the scale of OpenAI and Anthropic and mostly sustains off their efforts via distillation.
They (well, most of them) are looking at loans and debt (in plain sight and hidden) of AI companies and asking "what will pay for that", not looking at how much a GPU costs and how much tokens you can sell off it.
Just putting a model on a GPU and selling it is profitable, period.
But spending more and more money on building and running infra to build frontier models that solve smaller and smaller piece of the pie might very well be unprofitable.
Models competing with the frontier labs gets more capable every month and more and more of the tasks can be achieved without reaching for the big guns.
We might very well get to the point where AI/LLM is profitable just fine but bubble still bursts and the big frontier labs are in trouble. And frankly that would lead to far more sustainable ecosystem.
you are just talking about ai inference? Are you assuming ai models themselves fall from the sky.
Plus there is the actual demand side to consider and how does it impact when paid utilization isn't 100%.
I could even see F1000 companies having their own backstop intelligence for most of the tasks and only use frontier where it is absolutely needed or as much as it is under their IT budget.
Won't it be race to the bottom when they compete on cost? Is regulatory capture the only moat left for the market leaders now?
DeepSeek's models are relatively small, and training costs will be correspondingly lower than for larger models. All you have here is a revenue number - no mention of (training + serving) cost, so while they may well be profitable you can't determine that from this number alone (if it can be trusted).
DeepSeek (investor meeting leak) have previously said that they price their models at a point where the GPU is paid for after 10 months, so something doesn't seem to add up here. If they were making $38/hr per card 24x7, then in 10 months they'd be making $270K per card, while the cards (Huawei?) only cost around $20K.
Assuming a 64 card cluster
$38/hrs equals $320K in 10 months.
Assume they only have 100 racks, and as much as 40% operational costs. That would get them about $20M in 10 months, which I suspect is more than what 4.1 flash training has cost them.
I haven't accounted for 7 hours of peak-pricing per workday.
Of course, you won't have 100% utilization.
For four cards at 100% utilization it's $4712 per workday and $3648 per day on the weekends and holidays.
Quick numbers:
At $35/hour in net cash generation per card, a $30,000 GPU would pay for itself entirely in about 850 hours—roughly 35 days.
With an assumed ~ $2 operation cost per card and hour.
So you have to price your local hardware against however many subscriptions you would need to run a dozen concurrent agents around the clock.
But even then, I would guess subscriptions are priced on the basis that they don't expect every user to utilize their entire usage limit. I.e. power users are subsidized by casual users.
As a reference point, Z.ai is operating at 26% gross margin as of 1H26. So assuming ~90% gross margin is likely a bit off.
Orinally it was an educated guess based on rental prices I've seen but Opus 5.5 and Gemini 3.8 Flash both arive at the same numbers based on DeepSeek's Zhihu post and GB200 specs. Around 30 cents before depreciation and $2 to 3.50 including it.
A. The average utilization rate of inference GPU cards is not that high (i.e. it peaks during the daytime, but is idle at night). So the time window for earning $38/h is fairly limited.
B. They are renting costly GPU capacity from 3rdparty hyperscalers because they can't meet the peak demand with their own hardware.
C. Free-tier users are eating the gross margin.
D. Subscription users are eating the gross margin.
Another observable point is that Deepseek's company-wide gross margin was reportedly 44.6%. I'm curious what the full picture looks like here.
In DeepSeek's case this kind of levels out because they have a large user base both in China and the West (time zones), and additionally attract users in the non-Chinese timezones using their off peak 50% discount which is what DeepSeek talks about here.
> B. They are renting costly GPU capacity from 3rdparty hyperscalers because they can't meet the peak demand with their own hardware.
I looked this up from Chinese sources and DeepSeek primarily builds their own compute infrastructure rather than renting it
> C. Free-tier users are eating the gross margin. > D. Subscription users are eating the gross margin.
That's true, but given how lucrative inference at API rates is, they can subsidize training and individual users to some degree. Are they still losing money overall? Not unlikely, but with moonshots that is often the case. Remember that Uber and Spotify took around 15 years to have their first profitable quarters.
"This is our API pricing. For our API pricing, we consider a reasonable profit to be roughly: we buy a batch of equipment from the market, and recoup the cost in ten months. I think that's a reasonable profit."
As for the infra setup, I am currently using llama.cpp, although I'm just now working on switching to vllm since it is better for concurrent inference, since it can interleave prompt-processing and decode. Until now llama.cpp was enough, since I was on an R9700 and it was only practical to run one agent with decent sized context anyway.
Are frontier labs making 80+% gross margins on LLM inference? (2025)
https://johnnyclee.com/i/are-frontier-labs-making-80percent-...
- gpu market is starving, demand is higher than supply = leads to high gpu price
- number of openrouter shovel sellers rises = lower token prices
Indeed. This could actually be what breaks America's world order.
AI can already clone major products like Photoshop and Office. Maybe not at 100% feature parity for now but at a "good-enough" surface level. That will only keep improving. Eventually we could get clones of Windows and macOS at feature parity.
Even if US lobbying/corruption tries to cripple AI to prevent that, China will instigate and accelerate it.
But the architecture is similar to kimi's mixture of experts, and we already have such an optimization for different experts swapped in from disc by antirez.
> Required for a complete inference service (not included in this release):
* A KV cache system
* VE/Prefill/Decode disaggregation (most required engine functionality is already implemented)
* Load balancing across data-parallel replicas for both prefill and decode
https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017#prov...
Truly, "the more you buy, the more you save".
This is written in Rust: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/deepseek-recipe
This DeepSeek Recipe is also mentioned here: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2095560295930508953
This is advertisement for them, and more so for large entities (like governments and corporations) looking for digital sovereignity: the more they are reassured they can run of their stack locally when needed, the more they will use the cloud offer too.
That's strategic sabotage to say the least.
Ban all open weight models! Cried the VCs.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-21447.pdf
The DHS order only bans buying DeepSeek products directly (e.g. doing inference on their China hosted servers). It does not apply to open weights at all. And DeepSeek just gave their response to the DHS order.
Now, most software products developed with DS can pass an audit, whether human or from a US AI provider, that they do what they say and aren't secretly funneling telemetry to Beijing. When I say 'most..can pass an audit' I mean that most products are simple enough to undergo such an audit, rather than implying that some have exfiltration mines buried within; it's possible but I have have no reason to think it's probable. I believe the purpose of the broad wording is to facilitate the waiver requirement, which costs money to apply for and will require payment to an accredited or government approved audit provider, thus generating DSP on the US balance sheet even if the original prototyping/buildout was done with Deepseek.
"third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations".
So gov can't use western inference of DeepSeek either.
I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models in their business operations due to security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns.
European business users (+ consumers) can access GLM-5.3 via Mistral.ai hosting. (with GDPR)
https://docs.mistral.ai/models/zai-glm-5-3
https://legal.mistral.ai/terms/get-started/
Of course the same goes for any other model that you haven't trained up yourself.
Based on HN comments, every company would be running Gentoo and developing line of business applications in Haskell or OCaml.
The reality is what ever better and cheaper is where the money flows. Especially from an international corporation perspective.
They'd be wrong. Especially about Europe. Many companies are in a bind about this: they can't upload their confidential files to a service provider but they do want AI. So right now they end up with a choice: do nothing, breach their contracts, use a service provider that pinky promises not to share their data (which we have already seen they will violate) and run local models.
The latter is the reason you can't buy powerful GPUs for reasonable prices because a local model (GLM 5.3, DS 4, etc) + some hardware is all you need to solve the problem in a way that avoids the legal issues.
Mid tier insurance co is working with local inference providers and some of these now have thousands of GPUs up and running. Don't drink the HN cool aid that the EU is a backwater where nothing happens too much or you'll end up surprised one day.
The one thing where Europe really does lag is in training, that would be fair. But inference providers are popping out of the ground like mushrooms and there are some billion euro+ projects underway.
There are roughly 70 GW of datacenters under construction in the US right now, and a GW is roughly 500k GPUs, so 35 million GPUs.
The point was: they're buying them from the retail channels in relatively high volume because there is a massive shortage of GPUs in general, but that does not seem to stop parties with smaller projects who do not qualify for buying directly from NV (assuming NV even has stock to sell).
5090's now sell for the same amount (or more) that you could buy an RTX 6000 for a few months ago, and RTX 6000's are ~19K and up.
I found a stash somewhere, bought two, then two more and when I was ready to buy the remainder they were all gone. Serves me right for being too careful.
They are not, not even close. I wonder if you're aware how money is being "spent" between Nvidia and US AI corporations!
Its not just the US ... Where do you think all those 5090's end up? Its just crypto mining all over again. Most people do not realize that China was the biggest crypto mining operation because of its cheap electricity and people willingness to take big risks.
The same happens now also, with people buying up 5090's (and lower class cards) in bulk, to strap into AI rigs. With Nvidia discontinuing the 32GB 5090s, we already see pressure on the lower end cards that had a better price / performance for a while now.
China will do China things *lol* ... People there are just more willing to take bigger gambles (and the cheap elec helps a ton). But that is also a factor why a lot of consumer level hardware gets under pressure. Its not just the supply chain to the enterprise market that is eating a lot for AI.
Europe isn't in a bind. They can, and have been, running open weights on inference providers around the world. And they pay a premium for US models and accept its risk for the same reason they remain US allies. The cost is worth it.
Well they are wrong, I'm at a large EU startup and they are currently considering Deepseek as their default model, Opus/Fable would still be available for complex tasks.
I think people don't realize the Salesforce SAP Palantir would love to ship these models, and they have/are shipping them.
The threat of exfilteration of data via these models is high but it's nowhere near as high as the margins.
For instance if you could cut your ai input bill by over 90% would you do it? Can you put some of that extra margin say 10-20% to make it more secure.
I know of atleast 10 fortune 500 companies that are entirely planning to or have moved to Chinese models for a large portion of their work.
It's insane people in finance are delusional enough to think that won't happen.
Maybe Govt will try to de-risk with bans on using open models but I don't think that's going to work at scale, people will literally spawn labs to launder DeepSeek/GLM models into a US model by some novel training etc approach or something.
I still don't think that it's as much a kami-kaze rather it's an attempt to normalize the world around the Chinese stack.
If DeepInfer is supported by everyone, it will be much easier to export stuff aka hardware that only supports it for now or is optimized for it.
Assume china starts selling hyper optimized Asics for inference at some point.
This feels like a race to the bottom as soon as possible because they have much lower costs, if there is a Wipeout in AI Labs in US chinese labs are largely insulated, and they can hopefully buy Nvidia chips for cheap if that does happen.
Because they can and there’s no consequence to drumming up fear, same shit since the days of Napoleon and Nelson…
Quite failure by someone to assume that EU businesses would use US over Chinese, based on the current political atmosphere. US causes even bigger concerns than Chinese labs.
If you think that is the choice basket to put your eggs in, best of luck.
Thanks God nothing like that could happen in the US, thanks to its constitution, courts and armed informed citizens. That's why I'm putting all my eggs in that basket.
A single court ruling overturning an order from Xi will shut me up immediately.
> In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not going to have to vote.
At least the Chinese president isn't a pedophile enriching himself at the expense of the Chinese people. China has steadily increased the quality of life for its people where the quality of life for the average American has steadily decreased.
I'm not saying this is good, I'm merely stating that the central committee power and Xi's power is still limited by the sheer size of the Chinese state. If you compare that dictatorship to the Stalin dictatorship or Gheddafi dictatorship you'll find that Xi does not have that kind of unfettered power through sheer violence, he still needs to make a high number of cogs to work in unison to exercise it.
I think there is also a perhaps the need to assign air-quotes to "investors" when talking about the US markets.
There's too much fluff and noise there. Too much (over)leveraged trading. Too much speculation.
What the real investors think is hidden behind the actions of the speculative traders.
> I think they do not believe that big corporations in the US or Europe would actually use chinese models
The Chinese models are open-weight. You can download them and run them on your own servers. Or you can outsource to Mistral, Privatemode or any of the many other US/EU inference hosters.
So the "security, regulatory and/or business continuity concerns" arguments are effectively non-existent. And whatever argument does possibly remain, also applies equally to Anthropic, OpenAI & co.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many...
You're entire company would become ineligible for gov contracts if you have use DeepSeek. Something like that.
Correct. And they're likely very correct in the belief.
When people on the internet claim that frontier labs are done for because Chinese open-weight models exist, they really don't appreciate that the people spending the money do not want to hear "we can just run it cheaper ourselves!" Any software engineer with even a few years of experience knows that phrase is absurd, and executives are simply not interested in the risks associated with such an endeavour when they can just buy the solution outright.
Consumers will have access to open-weight models just like how consumers have access to Linux. But you can just go look at the market share of operating systems to see why something being free and openly available doesn't matter to executives who just wants to get things done and is willing to pay a premium to a trusted business to do the work for them.
And none of that even touches the fact that these frontier labs have only ever been in-front of open-weight alternatives. Again, if you're an executive, and you're questioning if you should pay a premium for a better version of a tool which you presume is important for your company's ability to compete, then the answer is immediately obvious: pay the premium or risk falling behind competition who is willing to pay the premium. And when you're talking about global companies who can pay these bills without it being significant enough to even show up on a quarterly financial statement, then it's an obvious sell.
That's why most of the internet runs on Windows IIS rather than Linux or BSD. That's why everyone here is running a VM on their Mac that hosts Windows containers to do development in.
I think you're missing two things here.
1. The margin by which a hosted product is operationally superior to self hosting an open source alternative is precisely calibrated. The SaaS provider has no reason to invest beyond the point were they can reliably make the sale.
2. Self hosted open source solutions come with a big bonus re: the ability to read and modify their code. But realistically ain't nobody got time for that.
AI upsets the apple cart in both cases. It's now far easier to manage locally hosted open source solutions, which means that in order to maintain the favorable effort ratio for making a sale, products must all get significantly better than their open source alternatives. That's gonna be a slow process involving innovative product owners. AI is getting better faster than it can happen.
Also, since AI is trained on the open source code, it's very good at integrating open source components. Previously nobody was bothering to gain that kind of mastery over their tools but now you can leverage it right out of the gate--but only if you're using projects that are in your assistant's training data. Maintaining a moat around a software product has always been orthogonal to making your product useful, but as we lean on AI more, it'll get worse. The more you protect your IP, the more its usability degrades. This was always true, but now it doubly true.
Executives may want to pay for a solution to their problems. But the companies that might provide those solutions no longer have a sustainable path.
The future of software is as a tool, not as a product or a service.
It's generally understood that for better or for worse, if you're working on anything (not just IT) that is security-sensitive, you're going to have restrictions on what can and cannot be done that may seem absurd at first, but hold up to scrutiny once more thoroughly examined. I would say that you don't even need to thoroughly examine this particular restriction. I have prod data at work that I can't give to humans outside of the United States. Not in India, not in the UK, not even in Canada. Clients insist on these clauses in contracts. This has been a known practice across many fields in this industry for decades.
Now we're suddenly seeing a chorus of posts saying that we should loosen up and send data to a non-human intelligence that was developed by a known geopolitical rival with a history of malicious intrusion on Western networks. Where does that come from?
The piece I think we're missing is that, currently, AI is for software development. It theoretically has other uses, but nobody has found much of a way to capitalize on them. For the time being, most of the money being made is in models and harnesses for software development. There's already precedent here to use more open/cheaper solutions.
Not to mention, if you make data security guarantees or have specific contracts, you can't even use US providers anyway.
So, they choose to believe, lacking a better strategy. They will also try to lobby their belief into existence.
The labs pushing this cyber scare is an attempt to cry wolf. The corps don’t give a fuck
The real money for AI will come from enterprises, and applications that follow the law to the dot.
And little by little all those will be banned from using anything AI related with roots in China
All other models are also either by <1k labs or side hustles by tech companies who are not particularly known for LLMs
It is clear from the beginning that the Chinese Open Model are a proxy for economic warfare. Anyway their singular goal is to dethrone US monopoly on SOTA model and burn all the economic hype and investments. If this strat works, which we will see after Anthropic/OAI IPO, we'll be in for an interesting ride
I mean, what would you expect? Like USA isn't openly planning to weaponize their current AI primacy [1, 2].
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prom...
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americ...
Way too many monopolies these days
The overall market will still be big, very big, if it replaces real people or augments every single worker.
Some contracts will go to your local provider (US Gov, etc.).
And there is still a moat between them and DeepSeek.
As long as i can afford it, i use Opus.
I'm not bound by it and switching is very fast
Meanwhile OpenAI has grown their revenue like 10x and Anthropic has grown theirs like 65x in that same time period.
There's no cap on what you can do with frontier intelligence, nor how much of it you can use. Yes, DS and other open weight models will continue to grow like crazy (as long as they can source compute), but so will the frontier labs. I ran like 20 agents overnight last night on Opus, Fable, Sol, and Astra last night, trying to use up quota before my weekly reset, and I'd gladly have done 10x that much and used agents 10x more intelligent if I could have. And in six months I probably will.
People will take the novel bits here and port them to the above. The community as a whole will benefit. Including infrastructure engineers inside OpenAI and Anthropic.
But a lot of what's in here is already in published papers out of DeepSeek already.
My mind is at: Even though it's overvalued, it will likely keep climbing and won't crash.
Where is the market at?
Then...it's not overvalued?
Unless you mean "it will crash relative to inflation over 20 years, but not over 5 years" or something like that.
The classic dotcom example is pets.com. Would you liken Anthropic to pets.com?
if these hold a year after an IPO then we can talk.
Rather than caring about whether it's over for western providers, I look at what competitors for the western providers have been doing since their first moment in the spotlight. And what I see is that their offerings keep getting better and better, and that at the same time they're opening not just their weights but their architecture and experience.
As a customer (rather than a pundit), I just like their tools and the user experience more than I do those of hte US giants. I admire the US offerings in many respects, but also find the user experience has a lot of friction and annoyances. Deepseek et al don't always deliver the same immediate 'wow factor' but when I sit down to build something, I enjoy using their tools. After 40 years of using computers for fun and profit, I will always always bet on a product that's fun to use.
Those valuations are a scam, they have always been a scam, like an updated version of the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) from 2008 [0]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sac...
it worked for the big short guys because the knew exactly when it was going to go bust
I hope more hedge funds start doing that. Basicaly funding open development to profit from tanking uptight super serious American stocks, to fund even more open development.
If you can't beat them, give the common folk means to skip them and profit from their fall.
Drop a few mil on tokens to make enterprise grade database to put out for free and bet against Oracle. Or train a model, or something.
If SpaceX was reset to 2016, they would still be ahead of everyone else even today. Their deployed capabilities today are ahead of the plans of most of their competitors.
Anyway, where's the revenue from space going to come from? Obviously not data centres now that Deepseek is commoditising inference.
The telecom business? Amazon is catching up there and Europe/the rest of the world is racing to build capabilities to not be dependent on Musk.
They may be catching up, but not anytime soon.
but perhaps you are thinking that starlink is the key? sure probably a bigger market - but any market it accesses is bound to eventually prefer ground lines.
so the only way to justify the valuation is if the AI side of the business becomes the most dominant AI business
Global space launch market is 6.5B in 2026. Even the total global satellite market is only 23B in 2026.
You have to assume some pretty large numbers for YoY growth, market share, and profit margin to get to 2T valuation.
US companies are throwing money at the problem, and considering how good Opus 5.5 is I’m not too concerned about them.
https://polymarket.com/event/anthropics-valuation-end-of-oct...
These have not really budged (yet) on this news.
It's possible to be correct that the AI companies have no future, but not be able to time the exact month they collapse.
If by 'collapse' you really mean a 50%+ fall, timing is not going to make or break you by any means.
If Anthropic is going to crash 50% or more at some unknown time in the next two years, and you have foreknowledge of this, you can easily make a massive profit by placing a bet weekly. The odds are VERY long per week, so on each losing bet you only lose a tiny amount, but on your winning week you will more than make up for it.
Timing is, as a general rule, important. In the particular case we're discussing, the odds of a 50% swing are so low that you can tolerate being VERY wrong on the timing if you are correct on the swing.
idk, if "prediction markets" remain a real thing, there should probably be some requirement for previous experience in options-adjacent markets to ensure people actually understand the economics of time-valued positions.
I don't understand the reference to Kamikaze in this context. Is Deepseek destroying itself in order to deep-six US frontier labs?
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KamikazeDeepseek started as Liang's side project funded with his hedgefund couch change compute. That set the economics for everyone else in PRC. If deepseek releases for free because Liang doesn't give a shit about making $$$ on his hobby, every other PRC player has to follow. And serendipitously, due to US export controls, PRC tech companies can't dig themselves into ruinous seppuku debt buying compute even if they wanted to - what they can buy, i.e. everything around DC infra including power, they get for fraction of the cost expediently.
TLDR Liang said fuck profits... which means every other PRC competitor had to fuck profits, which ends up fucking profits of western labs so deep in debt due to rampant financialization and can not afford to say fuck profits.
Sometimes a billionaire is fine just burning $$$ on a hobby while remaining a billionaire instead of trillionaire, and it just so happens the side effect might mean preventing others from being trillionaires as well. Bonus others is geopolitical adversary who is hedging economy on trillion $$$ returns.
Seems kind of pointless? Wouldn't anyone in the US/western world simply use the chinese models in their own inference? That would not strengthen the Chinese position because the models got downloaded for free off HuggingFace, and then cloud inference bills would just put money into US companies.
According to Greek economist and former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, an open source AI strategy is one way a capitalist economy can avoid the rent trap (platforms being created, monopolizing resources, and extracting ever higher rents from everyone else).
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2026/08/31/ai-is-reviving-chi...
One person's hobby started the industry in PRC and set the trend and inspired talent in nascent field with no established business model. PRC competitors didn't want to FOMO and just knew they had to compete with opensource and everyone fast followed. They bought what limited compute they could, hired what talent they could and just told them get to work. There's a reason even Chinese Uber / DiDi was releasing open source models. There wasn't some grand coordinated posture to compromise US markets, it's incidental to PRC industry being PRC industry. Very few in PRC thought they could close gap this fast with compute deficit. US chose to continuously dump venture $$$ and company warchests quarter after quarter on their own to increase exposure. There's no grand conspiracy to turn US into communist state (wut), there is not "bet", just typical PRC domestic involution business shenanigans clashing with US financialized VC shenanigans. In alternate world if PRC models not competitive, open source wouldn't even matter to US valuations. In alternate world if PRC models competitive and US AI isn't leveraged to shit to multiple % of gpd, i.e. systemic contagion risk, it also wouldn't matter.
It doesn't matter if US/west makes $ off PRC models, PRC doesn't have enough indigenous compute let alone spare to meaningfully compete globally. In so much it matters economically (again happy happenstance for PRC) is denying US AI making $$$$$ while spending $$$$ vs US AI making $ while spending $$$$. Extra happy happenstance that $$$$ US spending on is basically all the VC money and FAANG warchest stockpiled by US tech over decades... i.e. US spent so much that it meaningfully constrains private money to spend more in future. Meanwhile PRC AI spending $ to make $ (or less), but still have $$$ in reserve for other shit. It also doesn't help that half of business model depends on building infra on tight schedule that US is... not great at.
They'll need to release cheaper, better models to compete. Which may not be possible.
The moat is custom inference hardware, lower power, higher throughput, etc.
I'm out of my league on knowing if these ChatGPT projections are close, a little off, or way off, but we currently pay about $5k per month for Claude for our whole team. The projection for "run Deepseek on AWS to replace Claude" is coming in at $30k+ for GPU hours.
Well deserved too! The chutzpah of trying to peddle the AI equivalent to knives which refuse to cut flesh because it might be human flesh... astounding, and utterly disrespectful to their customers. Claude's guardrailing was so bad during OpenAI's HF attack that HF had to go to Beijing!!
I'm hoping Anthropic and OpenAI drop like stones on IPO. Never thought that liberation in this space would come from the Chinese!
> Required for a complete inference service (not included in this release):
> A KV cache system
> VE/Prefill/Decode disaggregation (most required engine functionality is already implemented)
> Load balancing across data-parallel replicas for both prefill and decode
also adding what other stuff aren't included in the release, and implicitly pointing out that they explicitly mention it's not included rather than it being stealthily missing.
[0] https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepInfer/blob/main/doc/infer... [1] https://github.com/deepseek-ai/3fs
The government would not allow this open work if it did not benefit them somehow, or perhaps they feel that keeping it closed is not very important right now (maybe because they are somewhat behind the frontier).
Comparing a university student Torvalds and state actors open sourcing code is pretty naive...
There is a pretty clear benefit to DeepSeek's reputation for all the other providers offering DeekSeek's open-weights model to have similar performance/benchmark scores.
In the past performance has varied wildly across inference providers, making this available should result in every inference provider implementing the same optimisations
It's pretty evident from their actions that China doesn't consider this an arms race in quite the same way a lot of the US crowd does. Rather it's an economic conflict: one in which flooding the market with cheap inference might bankrupt a bunch of over-leveraged US tech firms (and in doing so put serious brakes on the whole US economy)
That, and drive down prices everywhere.
7% of Chinas total population are members of the CCP. 7%. So at DeepSeek there's a good few handfuls of them.
If you want to understand the impact of that, read up on reporting lines in the CCP.
Not every company needs sign-off from the government for an OSS release, but every OSS release is visible to the government.
If you want a government job, you need to be member of the party. That is no different then the old USSR system.
You end up with a overcount of "members" as people who ideology subscribe to the system, vs people who just become members for the better jobs. And yes, those people also get fired or leave government jobs (especially given the financial issues in the local governments the last few years because of the building crisis / lack of income).
So this type of throw towel over everybody to make a point is just a useless statistic.
Do you know this? Or do you assume this?
I actually don't know. However, being from (west) Germany and old enough I know how a real socialist state, the east german GDR, handled it. And keep in mind that they were way more stalinistic than China is.
In the GDR you could have government jobs without being in the SED. In November 1989 they had 2.1 million members. Since the GDR had a population of 16.4 million, a whopping 12.8%. That a higher percentage than in China. And yet they had numerous even higher officials that weren't in the SED. Example "Hauptbuchhalter" in the combinats (some kind of main bookkeeper --- but keep in mind that their job was to follow the planned economy goals, not booking activa and passive). Or members of the central bank. Or lots of teachers (which in both Germanys are traditional official clerks ("Beamte").
They however couldn't be in (open) opposition to the system. There was "the sword of the party", the SED. And they had informants everywhere. So if you showed any sign of opposition, you were removed.
So you needed to be a "yes sayer", but being "SED party member" was not mandatory.
https://m.bjnews.com.cn/detail/1792137269129878.html
Apparently globally recognized top 10 models (so Deepseek 4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash) would have fallen under this export registration.
The model, yes, but not the inference framework.
There's also an explicit exception in there for open source releases (which may explain in part why these companies prefer to work in the open)
AFAIK, BYD batteries are based on "bad" materials, with fabrication method perfected until they are competitive [enough(?)] with batteries made with the "good" materials.
The good stuff is patented, locked by the West. China workarounds it. It's not that it is "bad", is just copying West's strategy doesn't work for them.
The latter are worse on some dimensions, so much so they weren't considered viable for cars in the West. But incremental improvement saw them take over the Chinese market. A classic "low end disruption" story.
They bought up the patents from A123, and American firm with a Taiwanese American MIT researcher founder. The firm floundered in the global financial crisis, a time that is a big inflection point for China's global domination of green tech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123_Systems
Living in the EU, I find it concerning that China has advanced so much in battery technology and in the West there are very few positive signs of attempting to keep up with them.
Closing your eyes and imagining that others are not really better, when they are, is not the right strategy to avoid remaining behind.
"We don't care! China has been here for 5,000 years. Most of the time, there was no United States and we survived"
Please never forget that US runs the largest state-sponsored hacking program. They are and have always been the largest APT. Anything opposing that narrative is blatant propaganda.
RE motivations - I wonder whether this is part of their push to double down on social stability efforts?
This is neither good discourse style nor does it help the accuracy of your own worldview to proactively decry and dismiss every contrasting position as propaganda. It's a surefire way to maintain incorrect worldviews and while it may hell your confidence does not make your positions true.
Kind of says that internal China competition is more intense than from America. I think there is both, but I would say it isn't like the "whole state" is backed against "us" in AI.
how about just "DeepSeek's motives behind this"?
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/a1815bc5-b5d5-47ff-bbbc-e1a689929...
Also cool (from the translated screenshot since original is in Chineese https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/2095560295930508953)
> the DeepSeek V4.1 Flash inference system has established three goals
> 1-..... 2-..... 3. Supports retaining KVCache for more than 72 hours
This is awesome
Does anybody offer this currently?
Wake me up when we can clone, point it at a dozen H100s we own, and get a working production service.
Anthropic and OpenAI will do just fine.
uhm...wake me up when I can buy one(1, single, uno) GPU to upgrade my PC so that I can play modern games with high graphics, without feeling like I'm being bled dry.
y'all got dozens of H100 at home? isn't that ~300k??
But in that vein, you are in the same position as the chinese LLM providers. They cannot get hardware to host so they put the problem in the forefront by offering it open.
In a way, Deepseek is championing your cause.
fair point...
> In a way, Deepseek is championing your cause.
maybe in 2030 i'll have a chinese gaming PC with chinese local AI. would be interesting to see if they can do the same to US tech companies as they do to european car manufacturers. i'm ready for it...
What this provides is the give contributors to vLLM, sglang, etc. a reference implementation of some of DeepSeek's own hard-won inference serving techniques.
No doubt we'll see patches to vLLM inspired by bits in here.
They say it was inspired by both so I am wondering what the performance gain is.
Deepseek moment.
Hope DeepSeek starts month plans soon.
I do believe Claude Max 5x gives best quality/value at the moment out of all plans/providers.
Do they really need since they are already cheap, make apparently profits with interference and API costs follow the usage? Monthly plan doesn't have much benefits for them, if most would be power users anyway? Only reason is to get more users on the platform, but people already get there, anyway.
What do you do to make it not refuse cybersec related activities? Sometimes it refuses to even scan my own codebase for vulnerabilities which is bizarre.
They use your data for training though. Mostly I'm fine with that, but you do need to be mindful of what traffic you send their way.
I am personally a very happy OpenCode Go user. $10 month has never felt more useful.
This raises the question: why doesn’t DeepSeek provide a subscription service as well? Is it a better move to have a single pricing model like they currently do?
or by 5 opencode subscriptions, and have $800 of ds4.1-flash for $200. I'm skeptical that the average dev will manage to burn through the equivalent of $800 of ds4.1-flash if they spend even a bit of time optimizing their token usage.
``` or by 5 opencode subscriptions, and have $800 of ds4.1-flash for $200. I'm skeptical that the average dev will manage to burn through the equivalent of $800 of ds4.1-flash if they spend even a bit of time optimizing their token usage. ```
This is my point. For most developer, subscription model (with subsidize) is preferable. And what I'm wondering is, as suggestted by very cheap cost-per-token from DeepInfer, why don't Deepseek persued subscription market as well ? What make subscription not make sense for them to provide ?
This is where the model comparisons become hard. Luna and DS4.1-flash aren't comparable models in terms of coding performance, DS is far ahead. Or at least so say the benchmarks. So if you're good with the performance from Luna, there isn't even really a reason to look at DS. You'd pay more for capabilities you don't need. But that doesn't answer your main point of, what to do if you DO needs DS4.1-flash performance.
> And what I'm wondering is, as suggestted by very cheap cost-per-token from DeepInfer, why don't Deepseek persued subscription market as well ? What make subscription not make sense for them to provide ?
By bet, given that they've introduced time-of-use pricing, is hardware capacity. They don't have the capacity to handle more demand, which is what coding plan would immediately produce.
It's not just "here is $200 worth of tokens that you can use".
My point was that if the concern was about spend per month, than $200 of opencode subs will provide most people with more than DS4.1-flash usage.
I'm ready and willing to change as soon as I need to, but for the moment I'm going to take advantage of the subscription costs offered as it lets me know exactly how much I'm going to pay each month.
I've been using Qwen 3.8 Flash on an $18/month Standard Plan, and haven't gone close to consuming my credits. It got close to rollover date, and I gave it a decent nudge for 2 days, and used... about 2% of my monthly quota. Obviously one of the Max models could burn tokens a lot faster, but I'm very happy with the outputs one of the Flash models has been generating.
I need to give it something harder to do, it seems.
Literally everything I do is Open Source software and Open Content writing so I am fine with the lack of privacy using direct Chinese APIs. And, for a little more spend, just use US companies like Fireworks.ai or Ollama Cloud for more privacy, or run on-premise locally and get the best grade of privacy.
The more expensive subscriptions are just not worth it for individuals. Using deepseek even at API prices is better value. If you're a company it might be a different story.
I am happy for not maintaining a relevant open-source repo.