6 ms·
Sam Altman said startups with $10M were 'hopeless' competing with OpenAI
- rideontime 2y agoSam Altman says a lot of things.
- steveBK123 2y agoThe exact post I was about to make, glad to see it at the top, lol.
- stuaxo 2y agoWould be happy to go through my life hearing no more from him.
- NewJazz 2y agoThe forest is cold, but peaceful.
- readyplayernull 2y agoAlso not being reminded that technology indistinguishable from magic will happen in the next 5 years, or whatever carrot-in-a-stick money grab.
- some-guy 2y agoI'm wondering how much of my repulsion to AI is Sam Altman himself. Recently I've been trying to be more open-minded with using LLMs in my workflows and have found some minor performance gains here and there. However the hype around AI is frankly embarrassing.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago[dead]
- ketzo 2y agoI think this extends to a lot of normal people’s instinctive hatred of AI: they dislike it in part because they perceive it as being pushed on them by some pretty slimy people
- Agentus 2y agowait until it crosses a few thresholds we’re fast approaching. ai that performs at intern level vs phd vs domain leading expert level. ai that has the full context of what youre doing immediately accessible. ai that can agenticly autonomously navigate the computer environment without stumbling blocks. i think the difference between intern level ai and domain leading expert ai is a few algorithmic adjustments away using a type of reasoning reinforcement framework (like GRPO) which deal with competing signals in a better way. instead of averaging them, it reasons which contextually signal should take precedent. its the difference between lets say taking a vote among the common populace on how to build a nuclear power plant and finding an expert and figuring out where the experts decisions should take precedent and where other experts decisions should override. square that away and the embarrassing feeling on the promise of ai should wash away.
- echelon 2y ago> ai that performs at intern level vs phd vs domain leading expert level. These are different things: - Regurgitating advanced text that has been shifted into a shape matching your query - Understanding intimately the $100M screw to turn
- Agentus 2y agoobviously theres also a multimodality gap to be overcome to intimately understanding the $100M screw to turn, but i suspect most reasoning that matters has already been translated and is embedded into/in words. i wouldn’t underestimate the amount of useful knowledge that exists in embedding advance texts into an LLm model. the challenge is contextually hierarchalizing it (a matter of reasoning) and decoding it back into reality (words are dimensional squished encodings of reality).
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoHow do you know that these are different things? They could be, I genuinely don’t know, but I’m not sure where people are getting these kind of confident assertions about what modern architectures could never do. Would you have predicted in 2020 that photorealistic text to image generation was within the scope of current theory?
- n4r9 2y agoYeah. I gave Claude a spin today; it helped me to make a tech spec I'd written a little more concise and professional. But doing so required carefully reading and tweaking the output to maintain accuracy. I don't know if it sped anything up, but it reduced the cognitive effort a bit.
- thisoneworks 2y agoBig part of my annoyance is the term "AI" itself which you can say to mean anything, everything and nothing. It's something that's used to oversell/hype it to grab money.. which is fine. But if engineers like us can calm the crazy rhetoric down to "llms" or "text completion" "Image-gen api" that's already a leg up in thinking clearly. Like the question "is ai going to put people out of jobs" -> "is this new crazy good text completion model going to put people out of jobs" already gets us out of the weeds somewhat.
- taco_emoji 2y agoYeah its definition has been diluted to the point of useless now.
- lesuorac 2y ago> Big part of my annoyance is the term "AI" itself which you can say to mean anything, everything and nothing. Pretty sure that's the point now. You're selling a "solution" not a "product". So you don't want to market AI as some nice robot that can move car doors around. You want to market AI as a vibe that fixes enterprise problems. So now all the companies that want your AI both have to pay for AI and also your time to actually build a product for their problem.
- ForOldHack 2y agoHe says a lot of things that are untrue... but this... its true. Its why Deepthink makes no diffrence.
- echelon 2y agoHe's been good and bad for this field. Good: - Attracted a lot of attention, investment, and engineering to this field. It's unlikely we'd be where we are today without OpenAI shocking the world with its demos. - Built some salient products like ChatGPT Bad: - Tried to get congress to create a regulatory moat for AI (perhaps when he realized there was no moat for himself) - Tried to dry up funding for other startups (again to try to create a moat) - Over-hypes and over-promises what his team has done and what can be delivered (a boon to his fundraising, but making funding frothy and disconnected from fundamentals) - Engaged in very public-facing drama around his board, his company's nonprofit status, etc. - Telling congress he has no equity in OpenAI and is doing everything with no reward, yet driving around in a $5M Koenigsegg Regera supercar and getting a generous comp package put together for the new corporate governance structure. - Creepy stuff like eyeball-scanning Worldcoin is pitched as essential in a post-AGI world, but transacting on non-revocable biomarkers seems like some 90's televangelist's sermon about the "Mark of the Beast"
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Tried to get congress to create a regulatory moat for AI He was fundraising in the Congress. The whole “stop me before I shoot grandma” shtick was stupid and aimed at Silicon Valley. The moment states and countries started regulating AI he was caught flat footed.
- lumenwrites 2y agoI keep reading people on the internet mistrusting him with a lot of confidence, but I haven't heard of any tangible evidence that he's lying about anything. Can you name a couple of examples of the things he said that we know are lies? Or is it all just people making uninformed assumptions or being snarky?
- yoyohello13 2y agoChanging his company from a non-profit to a for-profit once he saw the $$$, seems pretty untrustworthy to me.
- gamblor956 2y agoOpenAI is not changing to a for-profit. It[1] always was a for-profit entity, owned by a non-profit. The big change is that the non-profit no longer owns the entirety (or even a majority) of the for-profit entity; it is now a minority owner. [1] OpenAI as we know it today. OpenAI was once just the non-profit entity, but back then was just an AI think tank. In 2019, it formed the for-profit corporation as a subsidiary to raise money and build the tech that we now know about (and make money from any products built on that tech).
- hannob 2y agoI don't know if this is technically a lie, but he said that he'll purchase electricity made from fusion power within the next couple of years. I don't know if he believes that himself. But I can tell you with extreme high confidence that this is not going to happen, and it's not even close to anything remotely realistic.
- directevolve 2y agoSecretly funding the FoundationMath benchmark, contributors unaware of the COI, having access to the questions and answers with a "verbal agreement" not to train on it. https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/19/ai-benchmarking-organization-criticized-for-waiting-to-disclose-funding-from-openai/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/19/ai-benchmarking-organizati...
- 2y ago
- b112 2y agoI say a lot of things, Monica. I say a lot of things. https://youtu.be/XM7_eqtljUg?si=d27SGVUiZ7oZJCA3 https://youtu.be/XM7_eqtljUg?si=d27SGVUiZ7oZJCA3
- henry2023 2y agoAt least he doesn't do a lot of "gestures".
- dang 2y agoOk, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. It's tedious and evokes worse from others.
- deadbabe 2y ago[flagged]
- shortrounddev2 2y agoThe tech industry, simply put, is not sober. Investors (and customers) are easily influenced by personalities and marketing stories, more than they are technical specifications.
- mschuster91 2y agoTo be fair that's valid not just in tech but everywhere. Unless you're one of the rare examples of a polymath, there is no way you can know everything to judge any given product (class) on its merits - and hence all the SEO fraud around "best 10 of <class>".
- some-guy 2y agoI'm dealing with this right now as a staff engineer. We are being asked to "bake in AI" into our product, without any idea what it means or what the end goal is.
- mv4 2y agoI think a lot of people find him charming. I knew when I saw PaulG listing him alongside Steve Jobs in "Five Founders". https://www.paulgraham.com/5founders.html https://www.paulgraham.com/5founders.html
- xcv123 2y agoCharming? His vocal fry is unbearable to listen to. Worse than nails on a chalkboard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJZpO3bTpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJZpO3bTpg TSMC management thought he was an absolute clown when he asked for $7 Trillion. They call him "Podcasting Bro". https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tsmc-rejects-podcasting-bro-sam-172040373.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tsmc-rejects-podcasting-bro-s... He turned OpenAI into ClosedAI. He is a lying greedy sociopath. It's possible (or at least I hope) he will fade into irrelevancy within the next few years, replaced with a less delusional and less insufferable CEO.
- ramesh31 2y ago[flagged]
- bitexploder 2y agoHe seems to have mastered the art of being unethical in all the right ways SV investors and incubators like. Many embrace his style of business, others hold their nose, not enough reject.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sebmellen 2y ago> "Look, the way this works is we're going to tell you it's totally hopeless to compete with us on training foundation models. You shouldn't try, and it's your job to try anyway, and I believe both of those things." He’s only saying that he’s not incentivized to make a small and scrappy team compete with OpenAI. I don’t think you should read this as “Sam Altman says small companies will never produce valuable AI models”.
- davidt84 2y agoWhy would Sam Altman be incentivised to compete with OpenAI? I don't understand what you're trying to say. But in the end your conclusion is the exact opposite of what he said, and I don't see what justifies that interpretation.
- tptacek 2y agoYes, this is really weird story, because what he actually said seems like the most banal possible thing for a tech executive to say about the prospect of competition.
- mattmaroon 2y agoHe was speaking specifically about Indian startups, and he did say they should try anyway, Which means he clearly thought there was some non-zero (but not very non-zero) chance one could succeed. It sort of is the most banal possible thing, and I'm sure he never even would have guessed that comment would have been repeated or been controversial (it was long ago). It's like if Toyota said you couldn't make a dependable car for $5,000 but hey, go try and prove me wrong. It's nothing
- josefresco 2y ago> the VC asks whether a trio of super-smart engineers from India "with say, not $100M, but $10M – could build something truly substantial?" I don't know where you got "incentivized to make a small and scrappy team" - The question was simple and clear, and Sam's response was pretty clear as well. He was/is wrong, and is now finding out. “Sam Altman says small companies will never produce valuable AI models”. sure sounds like "Look, the way this works is we're going to tell you it's totally hopeless to compete with us on training foundation models"
- mediumsmart 2y agoI agree. It would be pretty hopeless if OpenAI had to compete with a model trained on less than $10M - can't they just buy DeepSeek and rebrand it?
- wubrr 2y agoThat's not going to prevent the next DeepSeek from emerging.
- nicce 2y agoWhen looking about the staments of the founder, DeepSeek is what OpenAI promised to do originally. They are not for sale.
- WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 2y agoIt’s CCP‘s decision anyway, not founder‘s.
- jmkni 2y agoJust don’t ask it what happened on the 3rd of June, 1989!
- nicce 2y agoOpen models are not censored.
- buyucu 2y agothis is hilarious. hubris is a terrible thing. there is always bigger fish.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoBigger fish have a lot more than $10 million, though...
- dismalaf 2y agoOf course he's going to say that. He's incentivized to make everyone (especially investors) believe scaling is the only way so he keeps getting billions in investor money. If no one believes OpenAI can be caught, they win.
- culi 2y agoSpecifically he said > Look the way this works is: we're gonna tell you 'its totally hopeless to compete with us on building foundational models' and its your job to try anyways He's clearly being glib
- davidt84 2y agoHe also said "I believe both those things".
- quantumwoke 2y ago'sama is just maximising his upside in a completely rational way here. He knows he's the big fish, so he attempts to dissuade the little fish before they can even grow. I don't see a problem in him doing that, almost all VCs / CEOs would do the same.
- instagary 2y agoDeepseek blowing up like this really showed how tired everyone was with the AI founders acting like they’re saving the world.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the AI founders acting like they’re saving the world They’ve literally been pitching themselves as capable of destroying it.
- tensor 2y agoAltman is not an AI founder. He's a business owner and investor. He doesn't even have an undergrad degree! The actual AI founders are the ones building the tech, and OpenAI has chased many of them away.
- Jimmc414 2y ago> He doesn't even have an undergrad degree! I don't either. Am I disallowed from calling myself a founder?
- IncreasePosts 2y agoChased them away is one way to look at it...another way to look at it is tens/hundreds of millions of dollars luring them away.
- paulddraper 2y agoUndergrad degree is neither here nor there. Bill Gates is a tech founder.
- tensor 2y agoThe facts are that AI has been driven by PhD level research. There are vanishingly few cases of people who have not studied the area in depth making serious contributions. The term "AI founder" is usually used to reference the people who have made the technical and mathematical advances, not the person who hired those individuals after the fact to commercialize it. Altman is a tech founder and a business founder, but he is not an AI founder.
- neom 2y agoIf I had what OpenAI has I could imagine how to make it profitable tomorrow, because I could do that is why they HAVE to make it free without an account, to prevent anyone new from meaningfully entering the $0 to $20mth segment, If you look at their business strategy, it's top notch, anchor pricing on the $200, $20 sweet spot, probably costs them on average $5/mth to server the $20/mth customers, Take your $50m a year marketing budget and use it to buy servers, run a highly optimized "good enough" model that is basically just wikipedia in chatbot and you don't need to spend a dime on marketing if you don't want to, amazing top of funnel to the rest of your product line. They know what they are doing I suspect, they just need time to pull a platform together, and they have a long head start on that. Basically all of this reaction is to my mind, effectively presuming that "OpenAI" is a current gen chatbot? one would presume it's going to be a lot wider and deeper than that, and given what DeepSeek is pointing to, one with incredible unit economics over time.
- Sebguer 2y agoEvery single thing you said here falls apart at 'it costs on average $5/mth to serve the $20/mth customers'.
- neom 2y agoWhy? My wife has a ChatGPT $20/mth account, rarely uses now the novelty has warn off (I asked she said twice this month), the only reason she keeps paying for it is to retain the chat history. That's a tiny very rarely used docker container on a server somewhere. Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, but I would just run this the same way we ran digitalocean, all the $5/mth accounts with no activity sit on a box configured for that, once it starts to do stuff it moves to a box with less VMs on it, etc, this is how subscription levels in cloud work, sure it cost us $100MM to get there, but now it just prints cash. If OpenAI decided to stop training models and focused on unit economics, I don't see how they couldn't get it to profitability quite quickly, even with all the competition.
- ForOldHack 2y agoChat history is a text file. She is paying $20/mo to host a text file. If you pasted that text file back into Whatever... then you would also retain the chat history. How economical.
- blitzar 2y agoYou can barely buy a good car for that.
- willvarfar 2y agoBut Deepseek took some huge and hugely expensive models that others had paid $Ms to train (well those who didn't already only the hardware mostly used investor cloud credits, but still) and distilled them, rather than training from scratch?
- Tiberium 2y agoThey trained their own V3 and then trained R1 Zero from V3 purely as RL, it didn't completely work so then they took some CoT examples and trained R1 on RL + some SFT. You're thinking of the finetunes based on R1 outputs - those are not actually distills, and they're all far worse than the original R1. And yes, they're finetuned based on other models.
- ForOldHack 2y agoGarbage in, garbage out. More garbage out. Mmm... that garbage is looking pretty good. Can we have some more garbage?
- Tiberium 2y agoFinetunes of smaller models on R1 output are pretty bad, but the main R1 model is very, very far from being "garbage".
- josefritzishere 2y agoOverconfidence is it's own category of system vulnerability.
- jrflowers 2y agoI am beginning to think that the fate of the world might not rest on giving this man infinity dollars
- longtimelistnr 2y agoi sure hope it doesn't. i can't see how anyone gets fooled by him. if anything he inspires me to try and get a cool $10M and bounce on investors
- Davidzheng 2y agoI hope this is obvious but deepseek has more than $10 M. You can't spend all of your cash on a single training run.
- m3kw9 2y agoHe still right even with deepseek, they are way more than 10m
- druvisc 2y agoSo much for Open-AI.
- tempeler 2y agoIn the end, he is a very good dealer. He already got his packet. From now on, it's OpenAI's investors' problem. not him.
- julianeon 2y agoWell, he was wrong about that.
- KoolKat23 2y agoThis is a bit absurd. Why would he tell someone how to compete with him? His answer is I'd say perhaps meant to be facetious considering the rather rude question posed.
- codingwagie 2y agoMy personal opinion on society, is that many many businesses have massive inefficiencies and could be wiped off the map if people understood those weaknesses. But there is a culture of "that CEO is so smart, no chance you could compete". Reality is, they are just hiring random people with fancy degrees. I bet most OpenAI "ai engineers" have no clue how low level GPU CUDA programming even works. They are just tweaking pytorch configs, blowing billions on training. In the past, tech got away with the above because capital meant if you hired enough people, you ended up with something valuable. But AI levels the playing field, reducing the value of capital and increasing the value of the individual contributor.
- fullshark 2y agoMy opinion is that organizing capable people to accomplish goals is incredibly difficult, and that includes keeping a business running. Inefficiencies are unavoidable, even among engineers instead of "engineers."
- codingwagie 2y agoRight but traditionally the difficulty in organizing people is solved with money. Just keep hiring until the product gets done. Thats what we saw here, OpenAI wanted 500 Billion! Reality is the money wasn't necessary, what they really needed was innovation. AI will obsolete people that solve problems with brute force money, which is the modus operandi in VC backed startups.
- nicce 2y ago> But there is a culture of "that CEO is so smart, no chance you could compete". Reality is, they are just hiring random people with fancy degrees. Being charismatic, good talker and not having too strong moral principles will often also work most of the time, unfortunately.
- codingwagie 2y agoWe can hope that there will be a paradigm shift
- dlenski 2y agoFirst they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then all of a sudden when your rival starts cozying up to the incoming Trump administration — boom. I guess we delved too deep. Or something.
- lizknope 2y agoI'm in the chip design industry. After reading Altman's comments in this article and thread last year I realized that he is not as smart as he thinks he is. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmc-execs-allegedly-dismissed-openai-ceo-sam-altman-as-podcasting-bro https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmc-execs-allege... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41668824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41668824 Ultimately another company finding a better cheaper way to do AI is good for everyone. We were reading how it will be hard for new companies to catch up but but the existing big companies are now going to have to catch up. We were seeing a lot of stories about fab capacity and new power plant construction just for AI. I've been waiting for the AI bubble to pop just like the dot com bubble popped when investors finally started demanding companies show profitability. AI is certainly useful but at some point companies have to start showing how to make a profit rather than just hype.
- mplewis 2y agoGlad to see that other folks are coming around on Sam Altman being a professional liar.
- lenerdenator 2y ago> I realized that he is not as smart as he thinks he is This applies to the vast majority of startup CEOs in the tech industry.
- arrosenberg 2y agoOur overlords are selecting for risk tolerance in leadership moreso than smarts.
- lenerdenator 2y agoI wouldn't even call it "risk tolerance". Assuming that they weren't complete idiots with the money - which, admittedly, is quite an assumption at times - the backing of a SV VC should theoretically set up a person for a comfortable living for quite a while, regardless of the success of the venture itself. Psychopathy - the willingness to see humans as little more than what they can give you in your quest for self-fulfillment - is a far better measure for this kind of work.
- godelski 2y agoThis is absurd for a number of reasons. Probably the biggest being that $10m need not be the only investment. Sam of... Y-Combinator is suggesting that startups do not get more funding after $10m? That $10m is insufficient to demonstrate capability that would then motivate more rounds of funding? Honestly, I want to see more $10m startups. Stop this mega millions level funding into AI/ML and give out more small sums. Let people explore new ideas and scale. Give $10m to people doing non-LLM based stuff. Hell, give $10 to the Mamba team. Give it to the Ziming Liu (KAN). To Bruno Gavranović. To people doing Bayesian stuff. To a ton others. Let these people attempt to scale. If you really want to disrupt OpenAI the best way is to find something better than LLMs. You aren't going to beat the entrenched players at their game, but we know for certain that there's more efficient means of generating powerful learning systems. There's a whole community of "GPU Poor" people, which is just another name for "can't get their ideas through review because reviewers are too lazy to evaluate methods and just respond with 'not novel, needs more experiments.'" There's a metric ton of "unpublished" (still on arxiv) works that are more compute efficient and these people aren't just hungry, they're hungry and want to fight because they've been treated unfairly (I speak from experience).
- djmips 2y agoCommenters - watch the video - it's very short.
- peppertree 2y agoScaling compute can only be taken so far. True advancement in AI comes from optimizing compression of human knowledge. Altman missed the first principle by a mile.
- ForOldHack 2y agoWhereas, Marvin Minsky promised a PhD from an AI at the end of a decade, he would have done it again, but he passed away. He did this in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, he forgot about it in 2000, but made the claim again in 2010. Did you miss this principal?
- CamperBob2 2y agoIronically it's largely Minsky's fault that it hasn't happened. Too many people listened to him. It probably will happen by the end of this decade, or not too long afterward. Within the next few generations, a CoT mechanism like R1's (and presumably o1's) will be capable of originating, directing, and documenting original scientific work, doing so with no more guidance than a typical PhD candidate would receive from their advisor.
- robinhood 2y agoThere are several weird aspects in this thread. I would like to clarify that I don't know Sam Altman nor don't care about him, and do not hold an opinion regarding whether he is a good or bad individual. First, the title is inaccurate and misleading. It does not pertain to the hopelessness of competing with OpenAI; rather, it addresses the challenges of competing in the training of foundation models, which is not the same. Moreover, what he stated is likely true. Training a model with a budget of $10 million will likely yield limited results. I appreciate his anwser.
- serjester 2y agoIt's popular to dunk on Sam, but I don't think he's wrong here. There's now hundreds of companies that have attempted to train a foundational models and almost every single one of them has failed to build a viable business around it (Even Mistral looks to be in rough shape). Deepseek has done something remarkable, but they have the resources of a multi billion dollar quant fund at their disposal. Telling startups they have a chance is sending them to near certain death. There's way more promising niches to fill.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- AutistiCoder 2y agomakes sense if you think about it - if OpenAI spent, what, $10B on its AI, then it makes sense to say anything less than $1B wont cut it.
- gxs 2y agoA long while back I'd read an article about Facebook's incentive to commoditize technology It was posted here on HN (years ago) - I can't remember the specifics, but it touched on the subject of Facebook's ulterior motives in open sourcing a lot of their tech/models. At the time the conversation wasn't even about AI Posting here to see if anyone remembers this article - been trying to figure out what it was for a long time
- shenberg 2y agoThe DeepSeek v3 model had a net training cost of >$5m for the final training run, the paper lists over 100 authors[1], meaning highly-paid engineers. This is also one of a sequence of models (v1, v2, math, coder) trained in order to build the institutional knowledge necessary to get to the frontier , and this ends up still far above the $10m mark. It's hardly a "trio of super-smart engineers". [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437v1
- sangnoir 2y agoIncidentally, Altman's comments were in response to a question a out about a hypothetical startup with $10m. So you've made the argument even more cogent.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2y ago"Final" run... it took around half a billion - to a billion to get there. https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/01/why-the-markets-are-freaking-out-about-chinese-ai-newcomer-deepseek/ https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/01/why-the-markets-are-freak...
- leesec 2y agoHe's right lol. Deepseek has likely spent hundreds of millions getting to this point where they can train a 6M~ dollar model, if that is even the truth.
- alexyz12 2y agoits funny how this is great news but somehow the headlines are still negative
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Rantenki 2y agoExecutive whose dominance is dependent on a moat (cost of training large models), points out the importance of that moat... Of _course_ he wants to discourage competitors, but that is PR, not technical commentary.
- hintymad 2y agoStratechery said that Altman's greatest crime is to seek regulatory capture. I think it's spot on. Altman portrays himself as a visionary leader, a messiah of the AI age. Yet when the company was so small and that the progress in AI just got started, his strategic move was to suffocate innovation in the name of AI safety. For that, I question his vision, motive, and leadership.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Xcelerate 2y agoThe fact that the human brain can still do better on certain types of problems than SOTA LLMs while using less energy than a nice LED lightbulb continues to bolster my belief that ultimately it all comes down to the right algorithm. That’s not to say data isn’t necessary, but rather that the algorithm is currently the critical bottleneck of further AI progress, which a $10M startup absolutely has a chance of outcompeting big tech companies on. Heck, I wouldn’t even put it past an individual to discover an algorithm that blows existing approaches out of the water. We just have to hope that whoever achieves this first has a strong sense of morality...
- austin-cheney 2y agoAI is the new bitcoin. Its a buzzword attractive to people looking for attractive investments but cannot be bothered to really map the practical utility back to practical application. Let's be real. We have had autocomplete on the cheap for more than a decade before LLMs. How much greater utility do LLMs provide above autocomplete? Is that difference in value enough to justify the market value of something like OpenAI? I would say no. That is the definition of a bubble. I suspect some of the misconception is that people envision LLMs will do things like replace developers. That is so misleading. Yes, AI can replace some developers that cannot do much on their on their own, but that draws entirely incorrect conclusions. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because your developers suck doesn't mean AI is magic. It just means your business couldn't select the right people, or train them, to write software. It also doesn't mean AI will provide something new or better than those people it replaces, which was likely just as true for a more intelligent autocomplete system.
- niwtsol 2y agoI'm surprised no one has pointed out this seems like a classic example of innovator's dilemma - in the day's of HD's it took years for new technology to come around and upset existing companies. In this information age, everything happens quicker - so a new company, did something the entrenched leader said couldn't be done/didn't explore because their path was "the right path forward" - it created a blind spot. It isn't an exact usage, but I think the concept applies.
- nikolay 2y agoHe's such an arrogant... character! If the future of AI is in his hands, the future is not bright, but pretty dark!
- smartyworld 2y agoIt really depends on how you spend your money and the shoulders of which giants you can and will stand on for free.
- kaycey2022 2y agoCreepy dude to be honest.