all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 67 points 3 hours ago (5 children)

“Where are the engineers” to manage this on prem hardware?

Well, you laid them off, you fuck.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    IBMs a bit weird. They fired a shitload of them a while back.

    Then they said they're only replacing junior roles.

    Then I think they're hiring a lot more juniors because they need to build the next seniors.

    I didn't really follow too closely but that last statement is at least something I can respect.

    [edit] mushroommunk is absolutely on point [/edit]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 hour ago

    It's not really something you should respect. It's PR shell games. They fired senior staff to replace them with cheaper juniors. Not because they actually think they're training the future but because they think they can get the same work out of them+AI

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    Of course IBM has a hardware solution for you

    Krishna also predicted demand for on-prem AI will spur sales of Big Blue’s Spyre mainframe accelerator cards.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 hours ago

    Guy selling fruit says fruit is juicy more breaking news at 11

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 42 minutes ago*

    BTW, IBM/RHEL is hoping you might go for some red hat, IBM solutions for local distrobuted AI stuff :

    But you know, the CEO isn't biased. /s

    At least they're working on letting you have access to the open source (ish) local way of working with AIs instead of just the subscription model that the others are pushing.

    I did some digging into this before giving the fuck up since my computer is a potato, and I have too many fucking things to do with my time.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (6 children)

    “It’s a simple question for any enterprise. Would you like something that’s 10 percent of the cost if it’s 90 percent as good as the best, or do you want to pay that 10 times higher cost?”

    That really depends...

    90% is disasterous. It may sound good because it's "just" 10% off 100%, but it's awful. Two iterations reduces that to ~0.01%< but that's still pretty bad. Obviously the more complex, the higher the risk and the more demand and time per iteration. The machine also has no concept of criticality, so how much is being saved with three or even four iterations to assure failure is basically zero?

    “Then the question is: how many tasks require that? I would tell you some do, but the vast majority, summarizing an email, examining a contract, answering a customer call, composing an email, all of those can be done as well with the much cheaper answer.”

    Imagine 10,000 emails an hour through your enterprise and 1,000 times It fucks up. Anything from missing info to misinterpreting to just straight up modifying/deleting. No concept of criticality per email. 8,000 in a 9–5 office. 24,000 a day for a global enterprise. That's what 90% looks like.

    Then you got "examining contracts" and all the other stuff he mentioned...

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    I thought of it as grading as in an academic setting. If the top commercial models are putting out essays that are graded at 100%. The on prem models are putting out results that are graded at 90%. In the case of support emails, the results won't be much different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

    It doesn’t literally mean “90% failure rate vs 100%”

    In the HLE benchmark, for example, we may be talking about 45% test score for MiMo Pro or GLM or something, vs 55% for Sonnet and 61% for maxed out Claude.

    But further complicating that, those particular open weight models do better than Claude in one particular hallucination benchmark, meaning Claude/ChatGPT might be worse at RAG/extraction type workloads. It’s like this across the board, with different models trading blows in different areas.

    By “90%,” he really means “it’s so close the better model depends on the particular application, workload, harness, sampling configuration” and such, and that none of these models are close to “100% accuracy” across the board.


    One other thing: Anthropic, OpenAI, and Grok have all been accused of “dumbing down” models under high demand to speed up inference. If your application depends on them, and they are the only provider, that could throw a wrench in the workflow.

    But open weights? Pick your provider. You get an API as consistent as you are willing to pay for.

    In other words, that “100%” isn’t really representing the potential inconsistency one gets being locked to a single provider.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    It's his examples that I'm going off. But maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about and an IBM engineer is losing their shit at upper management right now. I used to work for them a long time ago under Virginia and that was standard... Though, so has been every other place since.

    I give IBM credit because so many of the people there are ridiculously smart. Not their business people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment