5 ms·

Disagree, because the very few very big AI players are (in contrast to the 90s) very solid. Yes, there is a breadth of absolute bullshit built on top of current

Disagree, because the very few very big AI players are (in contrast to the 90s) very solid. Yes, there is a breadth of absolute bullshit built on top of current AI, but if it were only ChatGPT-alikes and LLMs for coding from here on out, that in itself is enough real value, that requires very little imagination, a lot of implementation and there's more demand than can easily be satisfied right now for both.

petesergeant 1y ago
I’m an AI enthusiast, and it’s not clear to me that selling inference to a prop model is a winning business model, which is what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing. The open models are good enough today for many things, and are likely to only get better. Feels like inference is a commodity, and not clear how much money there is in it. I would love to know how much of the inference I pay for is being paid for by VC cash: I suspect a lot of it.
- xnx 1y ago
  > I would love to know how much of the inference I pay for is being paid for by VC cash: I suspect a lot of it. Definitely a lot of VC subsidies for OpenAI and Anthropic, none for Google.
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    Sure, that doesn’t mean we’re not getting subsidised tokens from Google though
- jstummbillig 1y ago
  To be fair though though, the "open" models are fairly sketchy as well, from a business standpoint, because somebody is paying for a lot of GPUs and expensive talent. It's probably the least obviously sustainable open source product of all time, and it's not at all clear to me why that would change going forward. Right now there seem to be roughly two paths, when it comes to frontier-level LLMs: Meta just not giving a fuck, spending instagram money and pretending it's a business, and whatever Deepseek is doing that might make it both good and also super cost-effective (and there it's even less clear, how much of it is real and what the actual costs are).
- optimlayer 1y ago
  yeah, most of it
dontlaugh 1y ago
You can’t be serious, surely? Most of the LLM applications are either entirely useless or trivially reproduced with much simpler free models (or even entirely non-“AI” methods).

petesergeant 1y ago

I’m an AI enthusiast, and it’s not clear to me that selling inference to a prop model is a winning business model, which is what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing. The open models are good enough today for many things, and are likely to only get better. Feels like inference is a commodity, and not clear how much money there is in it. I would love to know how much of the inference I pay for is being paid for by VC cash: I suspect a lot of it.

xnx 1y ago
> I would love to know how much of the inference I pay for is being paid for by VC cash: I suspect a lot of it. Definitely a lot of VC subsidies for OpenAI and Anthropic, none for Google.
- petesergeant 1y ago
  Sure, that doesn’t mean we’re not getting subsidised tokens from Google though
jstummbillig 1y ago
To be fair though though, the "open" models are fairly sketchy as well, from a business standpoint, because somebody is paying for a lot of GPUs and expensive talent. It's probably the least obviously sustainable open source product of all time, and it's not at all clear to me why that would change going forward. Right now there seem to be roughly two paths, when it comes to frontier-level LLMs: Meta just not giving a fuck, spending instagram money and pretending it's a business, and whatever Deepseek is doing that might make it both good and also super cost-effective (and there it's even less clear, how much of it is real and what the actual costs are).
optimlayer 1y ago
yeah, most of it

dontlaugh 1y ago

You can’t be serious, surely? Most of the LLM applications are either entirely useless or trivially reproduced with much simpler free models (or even entirely non-“AI” methods).