> your competitors will be able to replicate in few months.

Will they really be able to replicate the quality while spending significantly less in compute investment? If not then the moat is still how much capital you can acquire for burning on training?

> copyright provides such a moat.

Been saying this since the 2016 Alice case. Apple jumped into content production in 2017. They saw the long term value of copyright interests.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/apple...

Alice changed things such that code monkeys algorithms were not patentable (except in some narrow cases where true runtime novelty can be established.) Since the transformers paper, the potential of self authoring content was obvious to those who can afford to think about things rather than hustle all day.

Apple wants to sell AI in an aluminum box while VCs need to prop up data center agrarianism; they need people to believe their server farms are essential.

Not an Apple fanboy but in this case, am rooting for their "your hardware, your model" aspirations.

Altman, Thiel, the VC model of make the serfs tend their server fields, their control of foundation models, is a gross feeling. It comes with the most religious like sense of fealty to political hierarchy and social structure that only exists as hallucination in the dying generations. The 50+ year old crowd cannot generationally churn fast enough.

Striking deals without a proper vision is a waste of resources. And that’s the path OAI is on.

It's also why they bought 40% of the world's RAM supply, too

Going viral is great when you're a small team or even a million dollar company. That can make or break your business.

Going viral as a billion dollar company spending upward of 1T is still not sustainable. You can't pay off a trillion dollars on "engagement". The entire advertising industry is "only" worth 1T as is: https://www.investors.com/news/advertising-industry-to-hit-1...

Selling a bunch of $20 a month subscriptions isn’t going to make a dent in OpenAI losses. Going viral for a day or two doesn’t help.

Normal people are already getting tired of AI Slop

That’s an unusual way of saying uh…adult entertainment

Are the posters of effing kitten videos a customer base with a significant LTV?

(The obvious well-paying market would be erotic / furry / porn, but it's too toxic to publicly touch, at least in the US.)

If only 99% of the Internet was kitten videos and memes

> Who wants to copy&paste prompts between ai agents?

An AI!

The specialist vs generalist debate is still open. And for complex problems, sure, having a model that runs on a small galaxy may be worth it. But for most tasks, a fleet of tailor-made smaller models being called on by an agent seems like a solidly-precedented (albeit not singularity-triggering) bet.

>Also if you want to have more semantics, you add image, video and audio to your model. It gets smarter because of it.

I think you are confusing generation with analysis. As far I am aware your model does not need to be good at generating images to be able to decode an image.

I think you're partially right, but I don't think being an AI leader is the main motivation -- that's a side effect.

I think it's important to OpenAI to support as many use-cases as possible. Right now, the experience that most people have with ChatGPT is through small revenue individual accounts. Individual subscriptions with individual needs, but modest budgets.

The bigger money is in enterprise and corporate accounts. To land these accounts, OpenAI will need to provide coverage across as many use-cases as they can so that they can operate as a one-stop AI provider. If a company needs to use OpenAI for chat, Anthropic for coding, and Google for video, what's the point? If Google's chat and coding is "good enough" and you need to have video generation, then that company is going to go with Google for everything. For the end-game I think OpenAI is playing for, they will need to be competitive in all modalities of AI.

> Because OpenAI stands for AI leader.

It'll just end up spreading itself too thin and be second or third best at everything.

The 500lb gorilla in the room is Google. They have endless money and maybe even more importantly they have endless hardware. OpenAI are going to have an increasingly hard time competing with them.

That Gemini 3 is crushing it right now isn't the problem. It's Gemini 4 or 5 that will likely leave them in the dust for the general use case, meanwhile specialist models will eat what remains of their lunch.

Can Claude not do that? I've sent it pictures for simpler things and got answers, usually Id of bugs and plants.

You don't expect AGI to be multi-modal?

Outside of this: https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/ I don't think there has been much of a win for them even in advertising for image/video slop.