alt Hacker NewsI don’t think the industry knows how to price this stuff. Deepseek is great (I’m running it on a RTX 6000 pro setup) but it’s nothing like Fable. It’s still strongly human-in-the-loop which is fine, until you experience how good these models can be.
Think about it this way.
Let’s say you could buy an LLM that gets things right 98% of the time. But there’s another LLM that’s 100x the price but gets things right 99.9% of the time. To the lay person this sounds trivial but to a serious business this intelligence gap could represent millions, or billions of dollars.
Replies
> but it’s nothing like Fable. It’s still strongly human-in-the-loop which is fine,
It's funny to see that Anthopic shills have been saying the exact same thing for the past two years now (and it was OpenAI fans before). It's amazing to see that Claude 3 Sonnet was "great" but now that even Qwen 9B is better than this version of Sonnet DeepSeek V4 is still not good enough despite being stronger than Opus 4.7 was.
> Let’s say you could buy an LLM that gets things right 98% of the time. But there’s another LLM that’s 100x the price but gets things right 99.9% of the time
If you think Fable makes 20 times fewer mistakes than DS4 you're delusional. It doesn't even do 20 fewer mistake than Gemma 4…
If that’s the case businesses would be seeing millions to billions of profit gain (or cost reduction) in the past 4 months as they went from Opus 4.6 to Fable 5.
But that’s simply not the case. It’s very clear that vast majority of the business do not generate additional value from incremental intelligence gain from these models.
There is a reason why Chinese open weight models are now popular even in American enterprises, because CTOs realize that they are indeed good enough.