senordevnyc

And yet the labs keep growing revenue like crazy…

That's fair, I left out a part of what I keep hearing in relation to the open weight models only being a few months behind, which is that they're going to eat the big labs' lunch, but then the big labs keep growing...

How is that relevant to this discussion?

I completely agree, I think AI is a vast ecosystem will all kinds of profitable niches and sub-markets.

We've been hearing the line about them only being a few months behind for a year now, during which time O/A have grown their revenue like 10x, haven't they?

Maybe. I can't freaking wait for the IPO filings so we can finally put all this to rest. (haha, like that'll actually put it to rest on HN, but at least we'll have better data)

Yeah, I agree with this. I think the "the models are good enough" narrative is a myth. I've heard it so many times over the last year, but the model number keeps changing...

There is no ceiling on what you can accomplish with more intelligence, so there will always be a market for the best models, and that market is likely to just keep growing. If Opus 13.5 can one-shot a profitable company or discover a new disease treatment or whatever you can think of that a swarm of relentless super-geniuses could accomplish, companies (and governments) will throw money at it.

I also think there will always be a market for many sub-frontier models that will continue to grow rapidly as well, because "good enough" is definitely a thing for a given task.

On a purely technical level, maybe? But in terms of actual revenue, is there really any chance of anyone catching the big labs?

Obviously, this is only a valid question if you don't believe that open weights are about to eat their lunch and their revenue is about to collapse, or they're running a super unprofitable ponzi scheme propped up by investor money that's about to collapse like a house of cards. I don't find those positions credible at all though.

If you do, then this question isn't really for you, as I'm more interested in thoughts from those who think that OpenAI and Anthropic in particular are about to be the largest companies on earth in a couple years. Could anyone catch them at that point?

Or you could just not blow everything out of proportion?

also, pretty funny that you think I'm angry about some rando's hysteria on HN lol

I agree, but labeling it a "consent" issue is completely stupid imo.

Pretty ironic to be extolling the virtues of the EU's privacy approach on this story in particular...

Yeah, that’s why they take a Waymo. And following a statement of excitement about Waymo with “of course, we shouldn’t have to need this, because blah blah blah” is performative virtue signaling bullshit that does nothing to actually address the very real issues you’re talking about. That’s all I’m saying.

Did you consent to every other feature of macOS, the many thousands of them?

This has nothing to do with consent. A product you use is going in a different direction than your personal preference. Nothing new here.

We fought literal revolutions to force companies to sell to the government against their wishes? Which revolutions?

For sure, and my comment wasn’t aimed at you, it was aimed at the snide remark about nerds who dare enjoy taking a Waymo instead of fixing patriarchy.

I didn’t think your off-topic conspiratorial screed about AI art deserved a more thoughtful response tbh.

There is little more tiresome than having to caveat every single statement of appreciation or enjoyment with an acknowledgment of one’s privilege or the continued existence of bad things in the world, etc.

So no, just celebrate the personal victory, you don’t need to constantly be acknowledging the larger problem. The larger problems have always existed, and will always exist in one form or another.

Totally disagree, just like I think it’s completely ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that personal computers have failed to live up to the hype, represent a net negative, are mostly used for ill-intent, etc.

This is a shitty AI slop article that even admits it has no evidence this is even real:

No official Apple statement, architectural document, or verified primary image has surfaced to confirm the specifics. No such source was identified in the research reviewed for this article.

What the circulating example does clarify, regardless of its origin, is a pattern worth examining. Brand loyalty can short-circuit critical thinking fast enough to make observers praise a design choice before asking whether it actually works under pressure.

Mainly? If your computer is the net negative you claim, why are you using it?

This is just you projecting and straw manning, the actual article in question has nothing to do with whatever you’re arguing against.

Or maybe, and bear with me here, they recognize that they have zero ability to change the broader culture from being misogynistic and patriarchal, but they can take a Waymo and avoid being subject to it themselves.

Can you share some representative statements that reflect the statements that “most industry insiders” got wrong six months ago?

Who is we? I don’t pay painters, not directly anyway.

As for public funding, sure, if you can convince the rest of us that we should fund your work because of some broader benefit, great.

I have to say, the mathematicians are doing a pretty shitty job of making that case so far, at least to me.

In a short time, no one will care. You will not be able to distinguish a human voice from an AI voice, and people will talk to our agents for all kinds of things, in public, just like we talk to each other in public now.

I have no idea what you think I’m dodging. I could care less about AI art. I’ve never created it, I don’t view it (on purpose), I know nothing about it. My relationship to non-AI art is much the same, actually.

So if you have some question you’d like me to answer, just state it plainly.

Serious question: do we need it to be equally distributed?

If every human in a few decades lives a life with as much comfort, health, security, etc. as today’s billionaires, does it matter that the centatrillionaires of 2066 are off building private space habitats in the asteroid belt or trading ultra-rare crystals mined from Saturn’s rings or whatever?

I wish I was getting paid for it, but I downvoted you for free, for the shallow conspiratorial thinking without any evidence.

It sounds like you’re asking who will fund mathematicians once math is “solved”. Why would we even need mathematicians at that point?

I don’t think we know what the human mind would do in that situation, without a body or any sensory input.

And even if it did do something, the equivalent would be just running the LLM in a loop. And then I think it would definitely do something.