6 ms·

Look at the flipside - for the people who want to focus on applications of ML instead of futzing with platforms and implementations this sort of environment is

Look at the flipside - for the people who want to focus on applications of ML instead of futzing with platforms and implementations this sort of environment is a godsend. Compare what it took to keep a server/website/database up in the late 90's compared to something turnkey like Heroku today. It frees up a lot of developer time and energy for building the next layer of innovative things!

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
The "flipside" is that some of the best minds in AI basically have only 2 choices coming out of school: - AFGAM - Military The period of being able to build your own competitive AI startup was...what, like 3 years between 2010 and 2013?
- nailer 9y ago
  As of 2016 investors were still throwing money at 'ML for x' startups.
  - pas 9y ago
    Yeah, why not, Google will buy them if they are okay.
- ballenf 9y ago
  If AI is the high end of programming, then it's the equivalent of saying that a recent manufacturing grad can't build their own car assembly line and has to go to work for Toyota, Honda, et al. Barriers to entry at the "top" of industries are generally higher than lower down. I'm sympathetic to the sentiment. Consumers might benefit from the conglomeration more than from a lot of independent groups each reinventing the wheel or spending resources on duplicative infrastructure. There are trade offs of course. In particular, I really don't want one single ML platform to have all my data and know me that well.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    The metaphor would be that no combination of people will ever be able to compete with Toyota, Honda etc... and if they tried would be acquired or beaten to death by Honda because they are leveraging their massive scale.
    - inlineint 9y ago
      But what about Tesla? It managed somehow to compete with Toyota, Honda, etc, although it had to create a new market (market of electric cars) to do it.
      - taway_1212 9y ago
        Korean cars manufacturers created now mature brands from scratch. All it took was billions of dollars and a couple decades of time. Can a startup do it? No. Is the market locked up? No as well.
      - monkmartinez 9y ago
        Tesla isn't competing with Toyota... They are competing with Porsche and Rolls, etc. Further, they are a mess financially and have not proven to have staying power.
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Despite the hype and genuinely great technology and growth it's still nowhere near competitive with the big automotive firms. So while Tesla has definitely driven innovation here, there are still MAJOR hurdles to them being globally competitive. Further it took Billions and someone like Elon Musk to be able to get even this far, so in that context if even Musk and tons of government dollars can't get there then it's safe to say nobody can.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- aub3bhat 9y ago
  Frankly, I think your belief is due to lack of knowledge. As a current PhD student who knows several ML researchers at Google, there is fair bit of marketing involved in creating perception of Google supremacy. while no doubt Google is a leader in AI, their advantage is not as great as it would appear by reading the comments here. At the same time other companies, Apple /Salesforce / Amazon / Oracle and several other smaller ones are well aware of threat posed by Google and are always on the lookout for ML/CV startup that can fill the gap in products relative to Googles offering. E.g. Amazon acquired Orbeus around same time Google launched Cloud Vision.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    We fund a ML research arm at the University of Alberta, give me a break with this. I'm not talking about just Google. Its AFGAM: Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft You can add Baidu in there too probably. That's it though. always on the lookout for ML/CV startup that can fill the gap in products relative to Googles offering Right, acquire. Not compete. That's the point. You can't actually compete with these companies, like they did in the past with HP, Dell, Nokia etc... the best you can hope for is to be acquired.
    - aub3bhat 9y ago
      Funding is not knowing. There are always new markets which get ignored. Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft did not compete with HP, Dell, Nokia they essentially entered a new market. Most ML startups don't offer a new product but rather just enable features and acquisition is often the intended end goal.
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        You're missing the point. We expect that DNNs will a fundamental thread to computing going forward. AFGAM has effectively locked up all of the talent and data in the broadest markets already. Not only that they are building and deploying the frameworks that new products will be built on in those other markets. So they don't need to create the product, they just need YOU to use Tensorflow or CUDA or whatever they come up with that runs on GoogleCloudGPU or Azure Compute etc... What you're missing is that it's not about making a few million as a startup. It's that they are so far ahead in what is the most fundamental game changing, final human technology that I don't see a future where they are unseated.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
neovive 9y ago
I agree with this point. One can view this is as an extension of the current trend towards platform/infrastructure outsourcing. If AI and ML are deemed essential to future apps, we should be just as comfortable consuming it via a PaaS as we are with leveraging other parts of a cloud infrastructure. A valid concern, as pointed out, is when the large platform providers begin moving into domain-specific markets, leveraging their scale and closing out start-ups/small business. However, I believe nimbler startups will always be able to carve out a successful niche as long as they are closer to the customers.
- phil21 9y ago
  > However, I believe nimbler startups will always be able to carve out a successful niche as long as they are closer to the customers. The difference is where the majority of the "idle wealth" is created. Sure, there will be great business doing consulting work leveraging cloud providers - you can make a good business simply consulting on such things. However in the end you're simply enriching a large company. Whenever an "amazon cloud consultant" transitions a closet of servers to AWS - they made a bit of money, but the large bulk of the value of that customer is now in a giant corporation's hands vs. being spread out how it was traditionally (either in house, or via much smaller infrastructure providers that generally competed on service without much lock-in). The lack of competition in the web space is astounding to me, and will be incredibly damaging to innovation. How quickly people forget why decentralization used to be considered such an important goal. Yet it appears the entire industry is rushing head long into this model.
- dlwdlw 9y ago
  One thing though is that although 1:1 specialized and individual service is always superior, the providers arent well paid. This means that startups, though better than large companies in a certain respect, can no longer become rich because they no longer are capable of creating a barrier to entry. A butler provides good service to you individually yes, but he can also be replaced fairly easily. (Relearning your quirks and stuff) Startups then return to what they are in any other countries. Just a way to make a living rather than the potential path to riches it is in the bay area. As a side effect you get smaller elites controlling more of the pie. That has other implications as well.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

The "flipside" is that some of the best minds in AI basically have only 2 choices coming out of school: - AFGAM - Military The period of being able to build your own competitive AI startup was...what, like 3 years between 2010 and 2013?

nailer 9y ago
As of 2016 investors were still throwing money at 'ML for x' startups.
- pas 9y ago
  Yeah, why not, Google will buy them if they are okay.
ballenf 9y ago
If AI is the high end of programming, then it's the equivalent of saying that a recent manufacturing grad can't build their own car assembly line and has to go to work for Toyota, Honda, et al. Barriers to entry at the "top" of industries are generally higher than lower down. I'm sympathetic to the sentiment. Consumers might benefit from the conglomeration more than from a lot of independent groups each reinventing the wheel or spending resources on duplicative infrastructure. There are trade offs of course. In particular, I really don't want one single ML platform to have all my data and know me that well.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  The metaphor would be that no combination of people will ever be able to compete with Toyota, Honda etc... and if they tried would be acquired or beaten to death by Honda because they are leveraging their massive scale.
  - inlineint 9y ago
    But what about Tesla? It managed somehow to compete with Toyota, Honda, etc, although it had to create a new market (market of electric cars) to do it.
    - taway_1212 9y ago
      Korean cars manufacturers created now mature brands from scratch. All it took was billions of dollars and a couple decades of time. Can a startup do it? No. Is the market locked up? No as well.
    - monkmartinez 9y ago
      Tesla isn't competing with Toyota... They are competing with Porsche and Rolls, etc. Further, they are a mess financially and have not proven to have staying power.
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      Despite the hype and genuinely great technology and growth it's still nowhere near competitive with the big automotive firms. So while Tesla has definitely driven innovation here, there are still MAJOR hurdles to them being globally competitive. Further it took Billions and someone like Elon Musk to be able to get even this far, so in that context if even Musk and tons of government dollars can't get there then it's safe to say nobody can.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
aub3bhat 9y ago
Frankly, I think your belief is due to lack of knowledge. As a current PhD student who knows several ML researchers at Google, there is fair bit of marketing involved in creating perception of Google supremacy. while no doubt Google is a leader in AI, their advantage is not as great as it would appear by reading the comments here. At the same time other companies, Apple /Salesforce / Amazon / Oracle and several other smaller ones are well aware of threat posed by Google and are always on the lookout for ML/CV startup that can fill the gap in products relative to Googles offering. E.g. Amazon acquired Orbeus around same time Google launched Cloud Vision.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  We fund a ML research arm at the University of Alberta, give me a break with this. I'm not talking about just Google. Its AFGAM: Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft You can add Baidu in there too probably. That's it though. always on the lookout for ML/CV startup that can fill the gap in products relative to Googles offering Right, acquire. Not compete. That's the point. You can't actually compete with these companies, like they did in the past with HP, Dell, Nokia etc... the best you can hope for is to be acquired.
  - aub3bhat 9y ago
    Funding is not knowing. There are always new markets which get ignored. Apple, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft did not compete with HP, Dell, Nokia they essentially entered a new market. Most ML startups don't offer a new product but rather just enable features and acquisition is often the intended end goal.
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      You're missing the point. We expect that DNNs will a fundamental thread to computing going forward. AFGAM has effectively locked up all of the talent and data in the broadest markets already. Not only that they are building and deploying the frameworks that new products will be built on in those other markets. So they don't need to create the product, they just need YOU to use Tensorflow or CUDA or whatever they come up with that runs on GoogleCloudGPU or Azure Compute etc... What you're missing is that it's not about making a few million as a startup. It's that they are so far ahead in what is the most fundamental game changing, final human technology that I don't see a future where they are unseated.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

neovive 9y ago

I agree with this point. One can view this is as an extension of the current trend towards platform/infrastructure outsourcing. If AI and ML are deemed essential to future apps, we should be just as comfortable consuming it via a PaaS as we are with leveraging other parts of a cloud infrastructure. A valid concern, as pointed out, is when the large platform providers begin moving into domain-specific markets, leveraging their scale and closing out start-ups/small business. However, I believe nimbler startups will always be able to carve out a successful niche as long as they are closer to the customers.

phil21 9y ago
> However, I believe nimbler startups will always be able to carve out a successful niche as long as they are closer to the customers. The difference is where the majority of the "idle wealth" is created. Sure, there will be great business doing consulting work leveraging cloud providers - you can make a good business simply consulting on such things. However in the end you're simply enriching a large company. Whenever an "amazon cloud consultant" transitions a closet of servers to AWS - they made a bit of money, but the large bulk of the value of that customer is now in a giant corporation's hands vs. being spread out how it was traditionally (either in house, or via much smaller infrastructure providers that generally competed on service without much lock-in). The lack of competition in the web space is astounding to me, and will be incredibly damaging to innovation. How quickly people forget why decentralization used to be considered such an important goal. Yet it appears the entire industry is rushing head long into this model.
dlwdlw 9y ago
One thing though is that although 1:1 specialized and individual service is always superior, the providers arent well paid. This means that startups, though better than large companies in a certain respect, can no longer become rich because they no longer are capable of creating a barrier to entry. A butler provides good service to you individually yes, but he can also be replaced fairly easily. (Relearning your quirks and stuff) Startups then return to what they are in any other countries. Just a way to make a living rather than the potential path to riches it is in the bay area. As a side effect you get smaller elites controlling more of the pie. That has other implications as well.