Thread

1. MikhailTal · 1785950934 · focus · HN ↗

   > Google DeepMind: We are building strong momentum: Flash is in high demand, our Cyber model is live, and Gemma models have surpassed 900M+ downloads

   Considering these are the best stats they could find, gemini usage+general situation must be really, really bleak.

   High demand means nothing. A model being live is nothing to brag about. And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete

   1. jgalt212 · 1785951056 · focus · HN ↗

      > And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete

      I have always found NPM download numbers truly suspect. Is no one caching? Are they estimating true number of downloads base on some estimate of cache hits?

      1. marking-time · 1785955996 · focus · HN ↗

         > And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete

         Thank you for adding some clarity to this. When I calculated 900 million downloads divided by 8.3 billion people in the world, I came with a number that made it look like about one person in 10 were downloading this model.

      2. xnx · 1785958296 · focus · HN ↗

         Absolute download numbers are a pure vanity metric. Relative download numbers compared to other models tell you a little bit.
   2. giancarlostoro · 1785951218 · focus · HN ↗

      > Flash is in high demand

      I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable?

      1. kokanee · 1785951366 · focus · HN ↗

         Does everyone want AI?
      2. svachalek · 1785951573 · focus · HN ↗

         That said though, Flash isn't it. The prices on the latest flash models put Sonnet and Terra to shame.
      3. simianwords · 1785952732 · focus · HN ↗

         > I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable?

         I keep seeing this but this line of thinking doesn't make any sense. What does it really mean?

         There are expensive models that increase the probability of you doing your task under a lower cost. That means you can't use Gemma for coding your new compiler - it would just be overall costlier.

         Heavier models are cheaper at more complicated tasks because they use fewer turns and fewer mistakes.

         Cheaper models are more likely to be cheap at less complicated tasks. Like if you just ask Gemma "Hi" it would probably be cheaper than asking Opus.

         So what does this statement really mean? People don't want to pay the extra for a more costly model? Why wouldn't you? It reduces your overall cost!

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.