That's false. It's evidence, but it isn't conclusive. Someone thought that the law suit was worth filing, and that could be because the law suit has a chance of succeeding. It could also be some other reason, and it could also fail even if completely good faith -- this is why the evidence is non-conclusive.
The memory manufacturers don't believe the rate is sustainable, so are hesitant to start up new production to meet demand when it will inevitably crash. They have to operate on longer timescales than software companies.
just a theory! The end result was too make it difficult for me and you to run llms on our systems, and you need porwerfull system to run them. But some months ago, those powerfull systems where affordable for end consumers. Now, good luck buying let's say 128gb ddr5.
Do you believe this is more likely than corporations trying to restrict the supply for their corporate competitors? My thinking would be that we're just caught in the crossfire. The percentage of people seriously running their own models locally would hardly be any less diminishing if hardware prices were at their previous levels.
Its certainly plausible but what % of consumers would actually buy RAM and do it themselves? The most profitable regular mainstream user would gladly pay $20 and use a simple web interface and not worry about anything else.
I think this misunderstands basic supply and demand.
If there's this much global demand for RAM, there is simply no need to speculate further about intent; all else being equal, prices would have risen naturally anyways.
Of course, the rise in prices is also incidentally convenient for those that have RAM, and would make it harder for others to compete, but whether this was intentional is beside the point.
You are aware that a 1 trillion parameter model won’t run on any quantity of consumer hardware, even heavily quantized… you need a data center for that. And that is not even to talk of the Kimi K3 model which is in the ballpark of 3 trillion
memory companies are known to price fix as well, so i could really see either possibility tbh
and why not both?
If there's this much global demand for RAM, there is simply no need to speculate further about intent; all else being equal, prices would have risen naturally anyways.
Of course, the rise in prices is also incidentally convenient for those that have RAM, and would make it harder for others to compete, but whether this was intentional is beside the point.