3 ms·
> None of that means that the current companies will be profitable ... The future could easily be "Open-weight models are moderately useful for some niches, no-
by zozbot234 2y ago
> None of that means that the current companies will be profitable ... The future could easily be "Open-weight models are moderately useful for some niches, no-name cloud providers charge slightly higher than the cost of electricity to use them at low profit margins".
They just need to stay a bit ahead of the open source releases, which is basically the status quo. The leading AI firms have a lot of accumulated know-how wrt. building new models and training them, that the average "no-name cloud" vendor doesn't.
- x0x0 2y ago> They just need to stay a bit ahead of the open source releases, which is basically the status quo No, OpenAI alone additionally need approximately $5B of additional cash each and every year. I think Claude is useful. But if they charged enough money to be cashflow positive, it's not obvious enough people would think so. Let alone enough money to generate returns to their investors.
- intrasight 2y agoThe big boys can also get away with stealing all the copyrighted material ever created by human beings.
- brookst 2y agoHow far back do you think copyright should extend? Is it perpetual, forever?
- ses1984 2y agoHow short should it be? Two years? Two months?
- brookst 2y agoI wasn’t the one outraged at the “theft” of ancient works.
- intrasight 2y agoCongress keeps extending it and I do not approve of that. I think 50 years is a reasonable length of time.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]