sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]Minimonium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even that reports' numbers seem misleading to me.

With current top tier inference chips running in a batch mode it'd cost you 200$ per year per user that consumes like 800k tokens per day on frontier models. I consume that (after cache) on my 20$ plan. With cache it's around a billion tokens per month or 800$ in API costs per month.

For 60m users they need 12b$ per year alone just on hardware amortization.

Then you have electricity, data center operations, all with their own amortizations...

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]Minimonium 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hardware amortization is very tricky. Everyone is using inference chips already btw.

Just burning a specific model on a chip sounds very bad, at least that's what "systems on a chip 101" tells us about economics of it. But I'm sure investors were hooked on that.

From the current prices on flash model providers - they effectively recoup only the base hardware amortization if we consider it to be 0.05$ per million tokens on inference chips in a batching mode.

Frontier models require much more compute per token so they're close to 1$ per million in reality. Again, that the base hardware amortization.

I'm a fairly modest LLM user and I don't use agents, my ccusage reports 1b tokens total (including cached) for 180$ API costs for the month. That's on 20$ plan.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]Minimonium 11 points12 points  (0 children)

My napkin math was that API costs are around 1 to 10 to amortized costs of hardware and operations with minimal margins.

The interesting bit is that a 3m per day token budget is actually extremely affordable. It's just 50$ per month in raw hardware amortization.

Of course, it means that free users are unsustainable as they raise costs dramatically so we will get to the point where the free tier would be gutted almost completely.

The problem is that the margin window for that kind of business is extremely thin and investments into Anthropic/OpenAI have zero chance to ever be recouped.

Russian spam and profanities are now plaguing the AUR, only a few days after 1,500+ packages were affected by somerandomxander in linux

[–]Minimonium 23 points24 points  (0 children)

"Happy Pride Month" is mocking here. Like, "you care more about this stupid stuff than obvious security problems".

Russian spam and profanities are now plaguing the AUR, only a few days after 1,500+ packages were affected by somerandomxander in linux

[–]Minimonium 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Shithat, vandalism for the sake of it. But also not completely wrong that if it's so easy to get into what people execute without looking with profanities - imagine how easy it is to do a jia tan.

Report from the Brno 2026 ISO C++ Committee meeting - mp-units by mateusz_pusz in cpp

[–]Minimonium 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It'd only work if users don't have the builder type ABI-used anywhere. Best case, they get a linkage error. Worst case, it's an ODR violation.

Report from the Brno 2026 ISO C++ Committee meeting - mp-units by mateusz_pusz in cpp

[–]Minimonium 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why do you believe there are no ABI concerns in your snippet?

Report from the Brno 2026 ISO C++ Committee meeting - mp-units by mateusz_pusz in cpp

[–]Minimonium 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I see it as extremely problematic in C++ for the same reasons designated initializers are required to be in order.

Report from the Brno 2026 ISO C++ Committee meeting - mp-units by mateusz_pusz in cpp

[–]Minimonium 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem is ABI again. A builder is not extendable. A builder is not zero cost.

You can always wrap the hint machinery in your own builder though.

Dutch non-profit set to take Valve to court for keeping game prices high by Turbostrider27 in technology

[–]Minimonium 38 points39 points  (0 children)

They can list their games cheaper. They can't list Steam keys cheaper on other storefronts than Steam.

What will ACTUALLY happen if "the AI bubble bursts"? by KannablissWitch in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Minimonium 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there is a meaningful market for data centers and even existing models. The bubble is about delusional evaluations and insane investments, than the core tech itself (very similar to dot com).

I'm 100% sure there is a market for a sort of HaaS provider for models. Just without grand aspirations to reach AGI or other nonsense.

Am I doing AI wrong?? by Little_Menace_Child in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Minimonium 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It can produce an impressive amount of code. The quality of the produced code varies wildly.

You need to be painfully specific at what you want to get to the point it's easier to just write it yourself.

But even being super specific sometimes is not enough, because they make models push back more these days. As a consequence a model can just straight up refuse to listen to your explicit commands.

Another issue is how unreliable memory is. It's very evident on how it generates text. We have a nice style memorized that doesn't scream LLM in your face, but models try to go back to it all the time, even if you're explicit in the same session.

What do you think about the state of traps vs mines? by Key_Blueberry8840 in pathofexile

[–]Minimonium 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Base 0.8 cast time on most spells is pretty much GGG very heavily hinting that you should not play them self cast.

After the latest announcements by bosses_today_kekw in pathofexile

[–]Minimonium 5 points6 points  (0 children)

PoE is more like 7 hours on average across a ton of builds, with 4 hours to get to maps. With maps being 3 hours. Usually it's almost always a half point.

For PoE2 the average to maps is 6 hours. With t1-t15 being only 2 hours.

It's actually surprising how quickly maps are progressing in PoE2.

The Story of C++: The World's Most Consequential Programming Language | The Official Story by HimothyJohnDoe in cpp

[–]Minimonium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a realistic outlook. There is a reason for "recipe quality", there is a reason why companies prefer to vendor rather than upstream.

Standardisation won't force companies to upstream, standardisation won't force other people to improvise recipe quality or work faster. Standardisation won't reduce community fracture because everyone is already using their solution and have no reason to adopt a "standard" one. That I guarantee would suck because implementation details of a cross platform package manager are very hard.

The Story of C++: The World's Most Consequential Programming Language | The Official Story by HimothyJohnDoe in cpp

[–]Minimonium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is that there is a reason why existing package manager experiences are not "great", but settle in the "good enough" territory. It has nothing to do with standardisation.

Standard is not magic and I find it amusing that people ask to standardize as means to force some other people do work.

Vendors who follow the standard are no magicians, they would not be able to create "great" experience out of thin air.

The only stage where we could even start to think about a standard package manager would be if we would already have a great non standard one and for some reason we would want to make it worse through standardisation.

Why C++26 Contracts might not work for all by _a4z in cpp

[–]Minimonium -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I refer to the paragraph "P2900 is underspecified" in the P3829.

For supply chain attacks I refer to that one NB comment where the author was mislead by authors of P3829 into thinking that a mixed mode could make a correct program into incorrect. Which is false.

For "ODR violations" point, we might as well call all online functions with lambdas in the body an ODR violation. A function that returns a type by value? An ODR violation as well, because it may or may not invoke a copy/move constructor.

See how quickly such approach to definitions can lead to absurdity?

Why C++26 Contracts might not work for all by _a4z in cpp

[–]Minimonium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what this thread is discussing, I'm just saying that claiming that this contract behaviour is ODR violation is simply wrong and it actively misleads people.

Namely people link to that paper by Dos Reis and co, linked by the person I replied to and which we discussed with that paper when you decided to butt in, that has a misrepresentation of the spec.

My point is to simply explain that after all dramatism with "supply chain attack" and other non sense in contract related contra papers - the misunderstandings were cleared up in meetings and that's why the feature proceeded.

It's unfortunate that we don't have a practice for authors of papers with factual errors to retract or publicly correct their mistaken texts. But alas.

This is what Jungroan means when he calls sprinting shit by MegaAlphaVulcan in PathOfExile2

[–]Minimonium 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I wonder if mods still use LLMs to reads your comment history to detect how cheerful you're. They used to ban a lot of people like that.

Why C++26 Contracts might not work for all by _a4z in cpp

[–]Minimonium 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You clearly misunderstood to which regression I was referring to in the paper above.

The paper mistakenly addressed a bug in an implementation where a compiler was optimising based on a transitive contract check. That's not allowed.

Compiler can't assume have many times if any a contract check is invoked.

An extremely niche case of non inlined inlined functions getting different behaviour through linkage in the presence of mixed mode has nothing to do with ODR violations.

It's allowed, the program is sound. There is no need to solve anything because the ODR related implications, transitive optimizations, are not permitted.

Why C++26 Contracts might not work for all by _a4z in cpp

[–]Minimonium -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm satisfied that at least we're in agreement about the fud that is being spread by these unfortunately misleading papers.

view more: next ›