4 ms·
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 pr
by 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 agoI 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 agoWhy 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.