undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmichaelt2y ago0 comments

It's not a problem from a moral perspective or anything - we all know these models are very expensive to create.

However, from a marketing perspective - think of who the users of an open model are. They're people who, for one reason or another, don't want to use OpenAI's APIs.

When selling a hosted API to a group predominantly comprised of people who reject hosted APIs - you've got to expect some push back.

0 comments

jasonjmcghee2y ago

Is this true? I know a whole lot of people that use and fine tune Mistral / variants and they all use OpenAI too. (For other projects or for ChatGPT)

From my perspective, I want to use the best model. But maybe as models improve and for certain use cases that will start to change. If I work on a project that has certain parts that are fulfilled by Mistral and can reduce cost, that's cool.

I'm surprised how expensive this model is compared to GPT-4. Only ~20% cheaper

staunton2y ago

> I'm surprised how expensive this model is compared to GPT-4. Only ~20% cheaper

I'm guessing all currently available paid options are operating at a (perhaps significant) loss in order to capture market share. So it might be that nobody can afford to push the prices even lower without significant risk of running out of money before any "market capture" can realistically be expected to happen...

michaeltOP2y ago

What you say is kinda an example of what I mean.

You say you know people who use and fine tune Mistral / variants

You know what you can't do with Mistral Large? Fine tune it, or use variants.

jasonjmcghee2y ago

I was mostly trying to say, in my experience, people who use open models don't only use open models.

But I guess I'm hearing you say now, a key point was- the attractive part about Mistral was the open model aspect.

But it's difficult to pay expenses and wages if you can't charge money.

Re: fine tuning- hard for me to believe they won't add it eventually.

behnamoh2y ago

This. Also, at least be upfront with users about motives. OpenAI stopped claiming to be "open" about 2-3 years ago. That's fine—at least I know they're not pro-OSS.

But Mistral has been marketing itself as the underdog competitor whose offerings are on par with gpt-3.5-turbo and even gpt-4, while being pro-OSS.

Lies, damn lies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jasonjmcghee2y ago

Is this true? I know a whole lot of people that use and fine tune Mistral / variants and they all use OpenAI too. (For other projects or for ChatGPT)

I'm surprised how expensive this model is compared to GPT-4. Only ~20% cheaper

staunton2y ago

> I'm surprised how expensive this model is compared to GPT-4. Only ~20% cheaper

michaeltOP2y ago

What you say is kinda an example of what I mean.

You say you know people who use and fine tune Mistral / variants

You know what you can't do with Mistral Large? Fine tune it, or use variants.

jasonjmcghee2y ago

I was mostly trying to say, in my experience, people who use open models don't only use open models.

But I guess I'm hearing you say now, a key point was- the attractive part about Mistral was the open model aspect.

But it's difficult to pay expenses and wages if you can't charge money.

Re: fine tuning- hard for me to believe they won't add it eventually.

behnamoh2y ago

This. Also, at least be upfront with users about motives. OpenAI stopped claiming to be "open" about 2-3 years ago. That's fine—at least I know they're not pro-OSS.

But Mistral has been marketing itself as the underdog competitor whose offerings are on par with gpt-3.5-turbo and even gpt-4, while being pro-OSS.

Lies, damn lies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse