It seems less sexy to be a commodity provider of AI rather than the one that makes the products and getting a direct share of revenue rather than a share of cost. But I have heard that during the gold rush it was better to be a tool and infrastructure seller than to be a prospector.
[0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3821400-nearly-30-perc...
> found that 27 percent of professionals have used the program to help them with work-related tasks.
«Have used», as free test, at least once. Maybe twice. Tomorrow ? Until real value, habits and serious problems are established, my bracket of day to day for professional use is still opened between 26% - 1%.
It's often a good starting point. Sometimes there isn't much to change if at all.
It can even design some custom algorithm.
When you know what you're doing, it's a very nice helper.
There are also things chatgpt can’t/won’t do that GPT-3 will, like writing music.
what planet do you live on? I work in midtown manhattan, I bet if I walked down the street, 75% wouldn't even know what chatGPT is, let alone that the other 25% actually use it.
Kodak had so much research that they pretty much survived on licensing their patent portfolio.