3 ms·

Because humans are entitled to certain rights and privileges that computer systems are not, and coming up with systems that causes profits to be distributed wit

Because humans are entitled to certain rights and privileges that computer systems are not, and coming up with systems that causes profits to be distributed within the top 1% while using the output of people without compensating them is inherently unfair.

visarga 3y ago
When we use gen-AI, the provider makes a few cents, and users get to set the prompt and use the outputs. So benefits go to the prompter more than the provider. It's like buying pills - yes, the drug manufacturer makes a profit, but the patient might save her health - a much larger benefit. Gen-AI is an empowering technology for the masses and easy to run locally. And the providers are in a race to the bottom on pricing.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  People hate the pharma industry but at least some of them perform their own research, and thus are, at least from a moral standpoint, more entitled to make a profit than the genAI companies where the value primarily comes from the training data. (Whether they should be able to hike drug prices by 100% overnight or sell drugs with insane markups is a separate question.)
- josephwegner 3y ago
  That’s not how markets work, right? And I don’t think it’s true in either example. If you can charge more, you will. Price should match value. OpenAI is charging a _really_ high monthly fee for ChatGPT, and it’s quite popular. It’s very limited - there’s no way the cost incurred for usage is near that. Obviously their costs include the R&D that has already happened, but I still think it’s priced way over that. Drug manufacturers are famously making money hand over fist. Patients aren’t their customers. Insurance companies are. They are surely gouging insurance companies to their fullest capacity.
  - visarga 3y ago
    > If you can charge more, you will. Price should match value. And big LLM providers will certainly try, but they have competition now, all 3 tied up at roughly the same level. And then there is competition from open models that can handle 50% of what big models do. So they can only set a high price for very advanced/critical tasks, where usage will be much lower.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    $20/month is high? For a tutor and research assistant who I can consult at any time of day or night? Seems like an incredible value to me. Would have probably cost thousands of dollars in 2020.

visarga 3y ago

When we use gen-AI, the provider makes a few cents, and users get to set the prompt and use the outputs. So benefits go to the prompter more than the provider. It's like buying pills - yes, the drug manufacturer makes a profit, but the patient might save her health - a much larger benefit. Gen-AI is an empowering technology for the masses and easy to run locally. And the providers are in a race to the bottom on pricing.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago
People hate the pharma industry but at least some of them perform their own research, and thus are, at least from a moral standpoint, more entitled to make a profit than the genAI companies where the value primarily comes from the training data. (Whether they should be able to hike drug prices by 100% overnight or sell drugs with insane markups is a separate question.)
josephwegner 3y ago
That’s not how markets work, right? And I don’t think it’s true in either example. If you can charge more, you will. Price should match value. OpenAI is charging a _really_ high monthly fee for ChatGPT, and it’s quite popular. It’s very limited - there’s no way the cost incurred for usage is near that. Obviously their costs include the R&D that has already happened, but I still think it’s priced way over that. Drug manufacturers are famously making money hand over fist. Patients aren’t their customers. Insurance companies are. They are surely gouging insurance companies to their fullest capacity.
- visarga 3y ago
  > If you can charge more, you will. Price should match value. And big LLM providers will certainly try, but they have competition now, all 3 tied up at roughly the same level. And then there is competition from open models that can handle 50% of what big models do. So they can only set a high price for very advanced/critical tasks, where usage will be much lower.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
  $20/month is high? For a tutor and research assistant who I can consult at any time of day or night? Seems like an incredible value to me. Would have probably cost thousands of dollars in 2020.