Our position on open-weights models

Re:Our position on open-weights models by puszczyk on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:51AM (#49080271)

I don’t disagree with your point on Dario’s conflict of interest. I def think the models are expensive.

But why call them overpriced? Compared to what? Even if we take the margin reports at face value, we don’t know their training costs, etc.

Curious if this was more of an emotional take or if there’s actual evidence behind it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by topranks on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:55AM (#49080294)

Yeah I don’t think they are over-priced, last I checked all those companies are still losing money hand over fist.

I guess the question is more he doesn’t want people catching up by doing cheaper training (through distillation or otherwise), and he definitely doesn’t want companies to spend their money training these models and then _giving them away_, which fundamentally undercuts their commercial model and any way to claw back their investment

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by gbalduzzi on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @03:20AM (#49080488)

> But why call them overpriced? Compared to what?

Compared to some available Chinese model I guess. For most common tasks the additional intelligence is marginal and the cost is around an order of magnitude higher.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by qwery on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @06:14AM (#49081744)

Compared to how much they want to pay. This is always what 'overpriced' means, as far as I know. The seller's costs/profits/margins aren't a concern for the buyer.

[ Parent | on HN ]