7 ms·

> aren’t that many killer products You've got to be kidding me. Maybe for text. But what about video training neural nets? I could list killer products for d

> aren’t that many killer products You've got to be kidding me. Maybe for text. But what about video training neural nets? I could list killer products for days.

nickelbob 3y ago
Please do - not trying to be snarky, just legitimately interested.
- swyx 3y ago
  each of these are known >$100m opportunities: Generative Text for writing - Jasper AI going 0 to $75m ARR in 2 years Generative Art for non-artists - Midjourney/Stable Diffusion Copilot for knowledge workers - both GitHub’s Copilot X and “Copilot for X” Conversational AI UX - ChatGPT / Bing Chat, with a long tail of Doc QA startups (shameless plug from https://www.latent.space/p/agents https://www.latent.space/p/agents)
  - htrp 3y ago
    > Generative Text for writing - Jasper AI going 0 to $75m ARR in 2 years And laying off a ton of staff in July..... the latest ARR numbers are not nearly as good.
  - localhost 3y ago
    character.ai
  - nibab 3y ago
    I think there are some killer products, but the surface area here is not that big. I can definitely see how we can improve on all of the above, but at the rate things are developing right now, you're looking at smaller and specialized models as the underlying infrastructure. Keeping the conversation focused on Anthropic, unless there is promise of some specific functions outside this range that require big powerful models, they're in trouble. There is a world in which the dust settles and the current "era" of AI doesn't actually result in a significant amount of productivity/value creation and capture thereof. Everything rests on the current assumption that emergent behaviors and some semblance of consciousness can extrapolate infinitely. You have to believe that in order to justify the investments we're currently seeing in some of the big players.
  - woah 3y ago
    Do they have a moat though? When MS Office integrates a more powerful model than is even available to Jasper right into the word processor, what happens?
- swamp40 3y ago
  If you can train a machine using video, and get it to repeat what you have taught it...and then manufacture millions of them - you have an (almost)-zero-marginal-cost revolution just like you had for software development. Plus, it's replacing $$$ humans. 4X the productivity while paying for itself in a few months.
  - nemothekid 3y ago
    >If you can train a machine using video, and get it to repeat what you have taught it I might be wrong, but from what I know about Transformer models and neural nets in general, what you are describing sounds a lot closer to something like an AGI. When you say “train a machine” here it sounds a lot closer to “teach a machine” rather than “finding weights and baises for an existing function”. I think we are still a ways off from AGI.
    - roguas 3y ago
      I dont think AGI is required. But multimodality for sure and some piece to plan/execute actions. Prompting techniques now, would land you clear tasks, validations and such, given some objective "replace table leg". A unit to process this would be required.
nibab 3y ago
There really isn’t a product in text or other modalities that shows me this is a $1T dollar market in 10 yrs (as the valuations would imply). To play devils advocate, even if there were some killer products, value capture seems particularly tricky. There just aren’t any business models that could sustain a market mass of this size. Lots of cool demos and productivity software (mind you with a very narrow definition of what productivity is).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Generative AI is very good at spewing bullshit. Unfortunately, the upper echelons of society run on bullshit. And so that's exactly why generative AI is revolutionary. The killer app is in separating dumb billionaires from their billions, just like crypto's killer app was. And just like crypto eventually filtered down to separating dumb retail investors from their thousands, generative AI may eventually filter down to generating scams & spam that separate dumb retail consumers from their thousands. That's why the dumb billionaires are interested in it. A more logical solution might be to not run society on bullshit, but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of most humans.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >A more logical solution might be to not run society on bullshit And this is why you're poor. In fact, depending on your definition of bullshit, if you did not run society on bullshit there wouldn't be billionaires at all. Once you reach the level of technology that can provide for everyone, what need is there to make more? >The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
    - adventured 3y ago
      > Once you reach the level of technology that can provide for everyone, what need is there to make more? Because you can never reach that outcome no matter what your technology is. Your premise is so vague as to be useless. Provide what for everyone? How much for everyone? Who decides how much for everyone? Based on what? Elected by whom? If you actually dig into any of that what you'll find is that it's impossible. Unless you use a hyper violent authoritarian model that dictates every minute of every person's life. Otherwise, one person will always have different needs than another person, without exception (and that's so varied we could be here all day listing the differing ways, from freak health situations to genetics to activity choices). And that's just on matters of basic needs. Then we get into luxuries, any and all things people want beyond basic needs. And then you have to debate the extent to which people require some manner of luxuries beyond basic needs in order to actually continue to exist in a healthy manner. And then you have to get into who decides on that, who dictates which people get which luxuries, if indeed it's decided people require some level of luxury in their life. And that's just scratching the surface at a minimum for why the premise: once technology has provided for everyone - entirely implodes upon any inspection at all. It never can, it never will. Human desire is infinite up to the point of expiration. That includes the desire for new experiences (can people live without new experiences? doubtful, certainly they'll live horrific miserable lives without such), which is a gigantic envelope of things unto itself, beyond the basic needs category. Who decides what new experiences everyone has access to? How much allocation to that? And on and on and on it goes.
janalsncm 3y ago
ChatGPT is the killer product for text. It has rough edges, but in a lot of cases it is far better than Google. Maybe it won’t kill Google but it will hurt. If you think it hallucinates too much, well I have bad news for you about the future of content on the open internet too. I’m pretty bearish on all of the other ChatGPT API call apps: I don’t see how limiting ChatGPT to a specific use case is adding value for me.

> aren’t that many killer products You've got to be kidding me. Maybe for text. But what about video training neural nets? I could list killer products for days.

nickelbob 3y ago

Please do - not trying to be snarky, just legitimately interested.

swyx 3y ago
each of these are known >$100m opportunities: Generative Text for writing - Jasper AI going 0 to $75m ARR in 2 years Generative Art for non-artists - Midjourney/Stable Diffusion Copilot for knowledge workers - both GitHub’s Copilot X and “Copilot for X” Conversational AI UX - ChatGPT / Bing Chat, with a long tail of Doc QA startups (shameless plug from https://www.latent.space/p/agents https://www.latent.space/p/agents)
- htrp 3y ago
  > Generative Text for writing - Jasper AI going 0 to $75m ARR in 2 years And laying off a ton of staff in July..... the latest ARR numbers are not nearly as good.
- localhost 3y ago
  character.ai
- nibab 3y ago
  I think there are some killer products, but the surface area here is not that big. I can definitely see how we can improve on all of the above, but at the rate things are developing right now, you're looking at smaller and specialized models as the underlying infrastructure. Keeping the conversation focused on Anthropic, unless there is promise of some specific functions outside this range that require big powerful models, they're in trouble. There is a world in which the dust settles and the current "era" of AI doesn't actually result in a significant amount of productivity/value creation and capture thereof. Everything rests on the current assumption that emergent behaviors and some semblance of consciousness can extrapolate infinitely. You have to believe that in order to justify the investments we're currently seeing in some of the big players.
- woah 3y ago
  Do they have a moat though? When MS Office integrates a more powerful model than is even available to Jasper right into the word processor, what happens?
swamp40 3y ago
If you can train a machine using video, and get it to repeat what you have taught it...and then manufacture millions of them - you have an (almost)-zero-marginal-cost revolution just like you had for software development. Plus, it's replacing $$$ humans. 4X the productivity while paying for itself in a few months.
- nemothekid 3y ago
  >If you can train a machine using video, and get it to repeat what you have taught it I might be wrong, but from what I know about Transformer models and neural nets in general, what you are describing sounds a lot closer to something like an AGI. When you say “train a machine” here it sounds a lot closer to “teach a machine” rather than “finding weights and baises for an existing function”. I think we are still a ways off from AGI.
  - roguas 3y ago
    I dont think AGI is required. But multimodality for sure and some piece to plan/execute actions. Prompting techniques now, would land you clear tasks, validations and such, given some objective "replace table leg". A unit to process this would be required.

nibab 3y ago

There really isn’t a product in text or other modalities that shows me this is a $1T dollar market in 10 yrs (as the valuations would imply). To play devils advocate, even if there were some killer products, value capture seems particularly tricky. There just aren’t any business models that could sustain a market mass of this size. Lots of cool demos and productivity software (mind you with a very narrow definition of what productivity is).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 3y ago
Generative AI is very good at spewing bullshit. Unfortunately, the upper echelons of society run on bullshit. And so that's exactly why generative AI is revolutionary. The killer app is in separating dumb billionaires from their billions, just like crypto's killer app was. And just like crypto eventually filtered down to separating dumb retail investors from their thousands, generative AI may eventually filter down to generating scams & spam that separate dumb retail consumers from their thousands. That's why the dumb billionaires are interested in it. A more logical solution might be to not run society on bullshit, but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of most humans.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >A more logical solution might be to not run society on bullshit And this is why you're poor. In fact, depending on your definition of bullshit, if you did not run society on bullshit there wouldn't be billionaires at all. Once you reach the level of technology that can provide for everyone, what need is there to make more? >The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
  - adventured 3y ago
    > Once you reach the level of technology that can provide for everyone, what need is there to make more? Because you can never reach that outcome no matter what your technology is. Your premise is so vague as to be useless. Provide what for everyone? How much for everyone? Who decides how much for everyone? Based on what? Elected by whom? If you actually dig into any of that what you'll find is that it's impossible. Unless you use a hyper violent authoritarian model that dictates every minute of every person's life. Otherwise, one person will always have different needs than another person, without exception (and that's so varied we could be here all day listing the differing ways, from freak health situations to genetics to activity choices). And that's just on matters of basic needs. Then we get into luxuries, any and all things people want beyond basic needs. And then you have to debate the extent to which people require some manner of luxuries beyond basic needs in order to actually continue to exist in a healthy manner. And then you have to get into who decides on that, who dictates which people get which luxuries, if indeed it's decided people require some level of luxury in their life. And that's just scratching the surface at a minimum for why the premise: once technology has provided for everyone - entirely implodes upon any inspection at all. It never can, it never will. Human desire is infinite up to the point of expiration. That includes the desire for new experiences (can people live without new experiences? doubtful, certainly they'll live horrific miserable lives without such), which is a gigantic envelope of things unto itself, beyond the basic needs category. Who decides what new experiences everyone has access to? How much allocation to that? And on and on and on it goes.

janalsncm 3y ago

ChatGPT is the killer product for text. It has rough edges, but in a lot of cases it is far better than Google. Maybe it won’t kill Google but it will hurt. If you think it hallucinates too much, well I have bad news for you about the future of content on the open internet too. I’m pretty bearish on all of the other ChatGPT API call apps: I don’t see how limiting ChatGPT to a specific use case is adding value for me.