In fact, it drives up carbon footprints, inflates cloud bills, adds operational debt, and leaves end users with little to show for it.
The issue is not the models themselves.
The issue is how we architect around them.
There is a clear gap between slapping an LLM on a problem and engineering an AI system that actually belongs in production. Hype-driven deployment means routing every request to a 70B-parameter model whether the task needs it or not. It demos well, but under the hood it is a compute-hungry, cost-heavy architecture.
Proper AI work is about matching the right component to the right workload.
I treat AI agents as systems integrators, not chatbox sidekicks.
A well-built agen should assemble the right alatan for the job. A lightweight classifier or rule engine can handle routine, deterministic tasks. A large LLM should sit at the end of a routing chain, reserved for genuinely ambiguous or high-stakes work.
But when every request gets funneled into one massive model, inference load, latency, and energy draw stay maxed out around the clock.
That is not intelligent automation.
That is architectural laziness dressed up as innovation.
The next phase of AI is not about who runs the biggest foundation model.
It is about building efficient inference pipelines where each task gets the right model size, the right compute tier, and a clear business justification.
AI should optimize resource use, not expand it.
That is where real systems engineering starts.



Ruang pembaca
Apa pendapat anda?
Komen disemak sebelum diterbitkan. Email diperlukan untuk moderasi dan tidak dipaparkan kepada pembaca.
Malinaw ang paliwanag tungkol sa 70B at madaling sundan.
Good to finally see request to a 70B set out this clearly.
Useful. We are dealing with well-built right now.
70Bをここまで正直に書いた記事は初めてです。
Me gustó la parte de 70B porque no es demasiado teórica.
You can tell the writer actually worked on AI should optimize resource use.
Still thinking about deploying LLMs just to ride.
Bahagian 70B tu yang paling kena dengan saya.