4 ms·
OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. OpenAI's C-suite: Well, they earned the C, but it was a letter grade. What a profoundly unimaginative strategy. No
by numpy-thagoras 2y ago
OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even.
OpenAI's C-suite: Well, they earned the C, but it was a letter grade.
What a profoundly unimaginative strategy. No matter the industry, a large-scale diversion of resources towards a moonshot goal will likely get you to that goal. They haven't made an argument as to why we should do that just for them, especially with all of the other alternatives.
And no, advertising your previously secret testing models (e.g. o3) as if they were market competitors is not how to prove they should have our money.
- abc-1 2y ago> OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. Then why do they look about average to Anthropic, Mistral, DeepSeek, and many others of that cohort despite having x100 the amount of resources?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- numpy-thagoras 2y agoPraising one doesn't mean condemning another.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ryanwaggoner 2y ago”They haven’t made an argument as to why we should do that just for them…” What “we”? They’ve already raised billions, and I suspect they’re about to succeed at raising tens of billions more, despite the skepticism of random HN users.
- numpy-thagoras 2y agoTens of billions? Sama has been talking about how their ask can be for over a trillion dollars invested. What "we"? That trillion is going to come out of our pockets one way or another, either as costs passed down, as government handouts from our tax dollars, as redirected investments that dry up opportunities for SWEs elsewhere, etc.