4 ms·
> a company can simply get the weights for free and sell them. This is the flaw in your logic. If the weights are freely available, they can not be sold for mu
by paddw 3y ago
> a company can simply get the weights for free and sell them.
This is the flaw in your logic. If the weights are freely available, they can not be sold for much value. That will in turn mean there is no "another OpenAI", because the core product, AI, will basically be freely available.
- Tenoke 3y agoHaving the weights on their own doesn't mean anyone can have their own OpenAI any more than having a core Google index snapshot would mean anyone can spin their own Google.
- paddw 3y agoThe timescale difference between the need for weights taking account of recent events and Google searches is huge.
- RadiozRadioz 3y agoIf that's the case then we might as well short the stock of all the public cloud companies who repackage and sell Open Source software. Why use RDS when PostreSQL is open source?
- paddw 3y agoWell, I am arguing basically that basically AI APIs would be much more prone to commodification. There would still be companies, of course, but probably not with value on FAANG scale etc... Certainty it would be easier to set up an API for a given model than providing what RDS does, to borrow from your example.
- ivalm 3y agoBecause RDS comes with infra to support the software. This is what many want from their ai weights too. For it to come with infra to support the deployment of apps that use the weights.