> This company is planning to spend 1bn just this year in order to run some numbers through someone else's algorithm. “Just”? Reductive mischaracterizations li

> This company is planning to spend 1bn just this year in order to run some numbers through someone else's algorithm. “Just”? Reductive mischaracterizations like this are not useful. It looks like a rhetorical technique. What is the actual argument? It doesn’t matter much “whose” algorithm it is or isn’t, unless IP is important. But in these areas, the ideas and algorithms underlying language models are out there. The training data is available too, for varying costs. Some key differentiators include scale, timeliness, curation, and liability. > Clearly it's all bullshit. There's no way they need that much and somebody will be siphoning it all off. There is plenty of investor exaggeration out there. But what percentage of your disposable money would you put on the line to bet against? On what timeframe? If I had $100 M of disposable wealth, I would definitely not bet against some organizations in the so-called AI arms race becoming big winners. Again, I’m seeing the pattern of overreaction to perceived overreaction.