3 ms·

Author makes some fair points but not thinking about indirect monetization Suppose you have a marketplace app, making $1 billion per year. You integrate a sho

Author makes some fair points but not thinking about indirect monetization Suppose you have a marketplace app, making $1 billion per year. You integrate a shopping AI bot that improves customer LTV 10%, so now your sales are $1.1 billion, a $100m growth! (Numbers hypothetical) That’s just one app. Imagine that across many companies, use cases etc. So while AI didn’t capture the full thing, if it captures a piece of many things by expanding the pie it could be extremely lucrative The same argument was used for crypto actually - the difference is not so many people (in developed countries anyway) have need for microtransactions. Whereas lots of people have need for “microtasks” - things they want but are too expensive. Example: consider therapy appointments, could be $100s per appointment. How many more people would go to therapy if it were 10x cheaper? Or personal assistant - I would hire one right now if service were cheap & reliable Each market may not be huge on its own but across a lot of markets - it adds up

berkes 3y ago
But the point of the article is that there aren't "a lot of markets" to disrupt. Or, at least, that most of these are markets that have very small margins or profits.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think that point is kinda wrong. Maybe there aren't a lot of markets for GPT-4 to disrupt, but that's not to say there aren't a lot of markets (and lucrative ones) for GPT-10 to disrupt. If we could jump straight to GPT-10, sure, that'd be great, but obviously getting there is an iterative process. Whether or not we'll get to a hypothetical GPT-10 (and beyond) is another question.
  - berkes 3y ago
    Why do you think that the GPT-10 solves the supply paradox of AI? And if it does, what markets are (combined) worth $80 billion (the valuation of just OpenAI) that can be taken over fully? Or with a multiple and taken over partially? And will that worth then get onto the bottom line of an AI company? The way I see it, e.g. copilot makes me worth more. Might even make me worth 10 developers. 100 by the time we have copilot 13.37. The net results, however is not that 99 developmers are without a job, nor that 99% of my income goes to copilot. But that the demand in software development increases 100x and I make even more (The Lump of labour fallacy). Yet the Copilots out there competing in a market that's running at a loss hoping for future profits.

berkes 3y ago

But the point of the article is that there aren't "a lot of markets" to disrupt. Or, at least, that most of these are markets that have very small margins or profits.

kelnos 3y ago
I think that point is kinda wrong. Maybe there aren't a lot of markets for GPT-4 to disrupt, but that's not to say there aren't a lot of markets (and lucrative ones) for GPT-10 to disrupt. If we could jump straight to GPT-10, sure, that'd be great, but obviously getting there is an iterative process. Whether or not we'll get to a hypothetical GPT-10 (and beyond) is another question.
- berkes 3y ago
  Why do you think that the GPT-10 solves the supply paradox of AI? And if it does, what markets are (combined) worth $80 billion (the valuation of just OpenAI) that can be taken over fully? Or with a multiple and taken over partially? And will that worth then get onto the bottom line of an AI company? The way I see it, e.g. copilot makes me worth more. Might even make me worth 10 developers. 100 by the time we have copilot 13.37. The net results, however is not that 99 developmers are without a job, nor that 99% of my income goes to copilot. But that the demand in software development increases 100x and I make even more (The Lump of labour fallacy). Yet the Copilots out there competing in a market that's running at a loss hoping for future profits.