4 ms·
And none of the major model makers (not counting SpaceX) have IPO'd yet
by Ancalagon 3mo ago
And none of the major model makers (not counting SpaceX) have IPO'd yet
- xnx 3mo agoGoogle (and to a much lesser degree, Facebook)
- Ancalagon 3mo agoGoogle's "IPO" is an extra raising round Is Meta even in this race anymore?
- Maxatar 3mo agoIs Gemini really that unpopular?
- Avicebron 3mo agoIf you don't count the autosummary/gen answer at the top of googling an answer I would say so. Outside of the more technically inclined crowd I think the sentiment is if you aren't at the forefront (opus/fable/chatgpt) then your last or at least indistinguishable from all the rest of the lesser models. If you're selling deterministic output, just use traditional code. If you product is inference, it has to be the best inference. This becomes more apparent when you bounce between powerful models and smaller cheaper ones, the cheaper ones _feel_ worse to use.
- axus 3mo agoThey get all of the ad revenue, but really don't sell as many money-losing monthly subscriptions as the other guys.
- cozzyd 3mo agoBut Gemini is bundled with various plans, like the ones that give you more storage for photos.
- dragonwriter 3mo agoPretty sure Google fits any definition of major model maker that SpaceX does, and had their IPO long before SpaceX. Meta and Microsoft both are also significant makers of GenAI models that are public, though neither has a big tentpole LLM line that they sell access.to commercially like OpenAI, Anthropic. Google, SpaceX, which I infer might be what you mean by major model maker.
- KerrAvon 3mo agoMeta had Llama, which set a lot of things on fire in a good way, and then disappeared from the scene as tech advanced. What does Microsoft have? Not sure SpaceX counts. Nobody sane uses Grok. It's untrustable due to reality-distorting political bias training, and it's strongly associated with CSAM production. Not what you want in a reliable corporate utility.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]