5 ms·

I actually think the people developing AI might well not get rich off it. Instead, unless there's a single winner, we will probably see the knowledge on how to

I actually think the people developing AI might well not get rich off it. Instead, unless there's a single winner, we will probably see the knowledge on how to train big LLMs and make them perform well diffuse throughout a large pool of AI researchers, with the hardware to train models reasonably close to the SotA becoming more quite accessible. I think the people who will benefit will be the owners of ordinary but hard-to-dislodge software firms, maybe those that have a hardware component. Maybe firms like Apple, maybe car manufacturers. Pure software firms might end up having AI assisted programmers as competitors instead, pushing margins down. This is of course pretty speculative, and it's not reality yet, since firms like Cursor etc. have high valuations, but I think this is what you'd get from the probably pressure if it keeps getting better.

cogman10 1y ago
It smacks of a goldrush. The winners will be the people selling shovels (nVidia) and housing (AWS). It may also be the guides showing people the mountains (Cursor, OpenAI, etc). I suspect you'll see a few people "win" or strike it rich with AI, the vast majority will simply be left with a big bill.
nradov 1y ago
When railroads were first being built across the continental USA, those companies also had high valuations (for the time). Most of them ultimately went bankrupt or were purchased for a fraction of their peak valuation. But the tracks remained, and many of those routes are still in use today.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  Just checked. The problem is the railroads were purchased by the winners. Who turned out to be the existing winners. Who then went on to continue to win. On the one hand, I guess that's just life here in reality. On the other, man, reality sucks sometimes.
  - baq 1y ago
    That’s capitalism for you - loser’s margins were winner’s opportunities. Imagine if they were bought by losers.
- pavlov 1y ago
  And today the railroad system in the USA sucks compared to other developed countries and even China. It turns out that boom-and-bust capitalism isn’t great for building something that needs to evolve over centuries. Perhaps American AI efforts will one day be viewed similarly. “Yeah, they had an early rush, lots of innovation, high valuations, and robber barons competing. Today it’s just stale old infra despite the high-energy start.”
  - nradov 1y ago
    Nope. USA #1: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-traffic-in-the-world.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-tr...
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    America's passenger rail sucks, it couldn't compete with airplanes and every train company got out of the business, abandoning it to the government. But America does have a great deal of freight rail which sees a lot of use (much more than in Europe, I don't know how it compares to China though.)
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      One reason the passenger service sucks is that the freight rail companies own the tracks, and are happy to let a passenger train sit behind a freight train for a couple hours waiting for space in the freight yard so it can get out of the way.
      - lupusreal 1y ago
        The root cause is Americans, generally, prefer any mode of transit other than rail, so passenger rail isn't profitable, so train companies naturally prioritize freight. For what it's worth, I like traveling by train and do so whenever I can, but I'm an outlier. Most Americans look at the travel times and laugh at the premise of choosing a train over a plane. And when I say they look at the travel times, I don't mean they actually bother to look up train routes. They just know that airplanes are several times faster. Delays suffered by trains never get factored into the decision because trains aren't taken seriously in the first place.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  Exact same thing happened with fiber optic cable layers in the late 1990s. On exactly the same routes!
  - cguess 1y ago
    It's because the land-rights were more valuable than the steel rails, which the fiber optic companies bought up.

cogman10 1y ago

It smacks of a goldrush. The winners will be the people selling shovels (nVidia) and housing (AWS). It may also be the guides showing people the mountains (Cursor, OpenAI, etc). I suspect you'll see a few people "win" or strike it rich with AI, the vast majority will simply be left with a big bill.

nradov 1y ago

When railroads were first being built across the continental USA, those companies also had high valuations (for the time). Most of them ultimately went bankrupt or were purchased for a fraction of their peak valuation. But the tracks remained, and many of those routes are still in use today.

bilbo0s 1y ago
Just checked. The problem is the railroads were purchased by the winners. Who turned out to be the existing winners. Who then went on to continue to win. On the one hand, I guess that's just life here in reality. On the other, man, reality sucks sometimes.
- baq 1y ago
  That’s capitalism for you - loser’s margins were winner’s opportunities. Imagine if they were bought by losers.
pavlov 1y ago
And today the railroad system in the USA sucks compared to other developed countries and even China. It turns out that boom-and-bust capitalism isn’t great for building something that needs to evolve over centuries. Perhaps American AI efforts will one day be viewed similarly. “Yeah, they had an early rush, lots of innovation, high valuations, and robber barons competing. Today it’s just stale old infra despite the high-energy start.”
- nradov 1y ago
  Nope. USA #1: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-traffic-in-the-world.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-railway-cargo-tr...
- lupusreal 1y ago
  America's passenger rail sucks, it couldn't compete with airplanes and every train company got out of the business, abandoning it to the government. But America does have a great deal of freight rail which sees a lot of use (much more than in Europe, I don't know how it compares to China though.)
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    One reason the passenger service sucks is that the freight rail companies own the tracks, and are happy to let a passenger train sit behind a freight train for a couple hours waiting for space in the freight yard so it can get out of the way.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      The root cause is Americans, generally, prefer any mode of transit other than rail, so passenger rail isn't profitable, so train companies naturally prioritize freight. For what it's worth, I like traveling by train and do so whenever I can, but I'm an outlier. Most Americans look at the travel times and laugh at the premise of choosing a train over a plane. And when I say they look at the travel times, I don't mean they actually bother to look up train routes. They just know that airplanes are several times faster. Delays suffered by trains never get factored into the decision because trains aren't taken seriously in the first place.
kridsdale1 1y ago
Exact same thing happened with fiber optic cable layers in the late 1990s. On exactly the same routes!
- cguess 1y ago
  It's because the land-rights were more valuable than the steel rails, which the fiber optic companies bought up.