@tomaarsen: At 1400x cheaper, I know I'm sticking to embeddings (dense, sparse, multi-vector), plus hybrid (incl. bm25) and reranke…

X AI KOLs Following News

Summary

A discussion on the cost-effectiveness of embeddings versus LLMs, referencing a study called 'embedder's dilemma' that finds LLMs outperform embedding models at significantly higher cost.

At 1400x cheaper, I know I'm sticking to embeddings (dense, sparse, multi-vector), plus hybrid (incl. bm25) and rerankers. Perhaps I'd even use listwise cross-encoders, they seem interesting.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 08/23/26, 09:45 PM

At 1400x cheaper, I know I’m sticking to embeddings (dense, sparse, multi-vector), plus hybrid (incl. bm25) and rerankers.

Perhaps I’d even use listwise cross-encoders, they seem interesting.

Niklas Muennighoff (@Muennighoff): can LLMs replace embedding models? in a new work “embedder’s dilemma” we find LLMs now beat embedding models – but at much higher cost. when to choose which?…

📜

Similar Articles

The Embedder's Dilemma: LLMs Are Better, but at What Cost?

arXiv cs.CL

This paper presents a cost-aware comparison of LLMs versus dedicated embedding models across 37 tasks, finding that the best LLM and embedding model are nearly tied on aggregate performance but LLMs are up to 1,431x more expensive and slower, leading to a recommended division of labor.

The Embedder's Dilemma: LLMs Are Better, but at What Cost?

Hugging Face Daily Papers

The paper compares large language models and embedding models across 37 tasks, finding that while aggregate performance is similar, embedding models are far cheaper and faster, supporting a division of labor for cost-efficiency.