Re:November 2026 Claude Fable 5.2 Scores 65 on Artificial An...
by kube-system on Monday November 09, 2026 @06:05PM
(#50433626)
The point is that the extreme high end of performance has asymptotic cost which is not an undesirable tradeoff for extreme use cases.
Re:November 2026 Claude Fable 5.2 Scores 65 on Artificial An...
by MikhailTal on Monday November 09, 2026 @06:55PM
(#50434139)
the concept of diminishing returns exists in every thing. headphones, coffee, cars etc. anything that can be pretty continuous in terms of quality will have this
Re:November 2026 Claude Fable 5.2 Scores 65 on Artificial An...
by ddosmax556 on Monday November 09, 2026 @07:02PM
(#50434229)
Almost no variant of the same product that costs 100x than another is actually 100x better than the other variant. Whether the increase in cost is worth the increase in value depends on the application/use case. Most often the higher priced tier is not worth it for most use users, but most often there are still some use cases where it's desired. This applies to almost anything you can buy: food, wine, clocks, cars, planes, bikes, ski, clothes, furniture, phones, appartments, insurance, service, anything. Surely also LLMs.
Modern studio pictures that get nominated for best picture or best cinematography cost around $80 million on average. If you look at highest grossing films the budgets are closer to $175 million on average – even taking into account the $20 million budget of Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle.
Isn't it more that when you're spending that kind of money that $100k for the "best" thing becomes kind of like "insurance" where you don't want to be the one who doesn't use "the best" when "the best" costs about 0.1% of the picture's budget?
Additionally a studio can buy the $100,000 lens once and use it on many films. But it's not like you can reuse Fable 5.2 in the same way.