I must have explained myself extremely poorly. I spent a fair bit of money ~$1,000 USD running a near SOTA fine-tuned llama model on cloud GPUs for this very particular task.
I think people do understand, but think you that your argument on price/performane uses two dataoint that are both far from a perceived better third option.
It's like saying I chose barefoot walking to get to the next town and while admittedly it was a painfull and not pleasant experience, it was free. I did try a helicopter service but that was very expensive for my use case.
People are pointing out you could have used a bicycle instead.
Maybe I misinterpreted what he wrote, but sanity checking the shiny new tech against fossilized tech of yesteryear to assure the new tech actually justifies it's higher cost doesn't sound like malpractice to me?
I mean he did use the state of the art for his work, he just checked how much better it actually was in comparison to a much simpler algorithm and thought the cost/benefit ratio to be questionable... At least that's what I read from his comments
