| ▲ | minimaxir 6 hours ago |
| I remember when AI labs coordinated so they didn't push major announcements on the same day to avoid cannibalizing each other. Now we have AI labs pushing major announcements within 30 minutes. |
|
| ▲ | observationist 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The labs have fully embraced the cutthroat competition, the arms race has fully shed the civilized facade of beneficient mutual cooperation. Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics will happen - I think Demis isn't savvy in this domain, but might end up stomping out the competition on pure performance. Elon, Sam, and Dario know how to fight ugly and do the nasty political boardroom crap. 26 is gonna be a very dramatic year, lots of cinematic potential for the eventual AI biopics. |
| |
| ▲ | manquer 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | >civilized facade of mutual cooperation >Dirty tricks and underhanded tactics As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers. | | |
| ▲ | ajam1507 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > As long the tactics are legal ( i.e. not corporate espionage, bribes etc), the no holds barred full free market competition is the best thing for the market and the consumers. The implicit assumption here is that we have constructed our laws so skillfully that the only path to win a free market competition is by producing a better product, or that all efforts will be spent doing so. This is never the case. It should be self-evident from this that there is a more productive way for companies to compete and our laws are not sufficient to create the conditions. | |
| ▲ | thethimble 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The consumers are getting huge wins. Model costs continue to collapse while capability improves. Competition is fantastic. | | |
| ▲ | mrandish 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The consumers are getting huge wins. However, the investors currently subsidizing those wins to below cost may be getting huge losses. |
| |
| ▲ | KoolKat23 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, but not cutthroat competition that implies unsustainable, detrimental competition that kills off the industry. | |
| ▲ | wiz21c 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | in the short term maybe, in the long term it depends how many winners you have. If only two, the market will be a duopoly. Customers will get better AI but will have zero power over the way the AI is produced or consumed (i.e. cO2 emission, ethics, etc will be burnt) | |
| ▲ | dwaltrip 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, it can be beneficial. But don't forget that externalities are a thing. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zozbot234 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're also coordinating around Chinese New Year to compete with new releases of the major open/local models. |
| |
|
| ▲ | tedsanders 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This goes way back. When OpenAI launched GPT-4 in 2023, both Anthropic and Google lined up counter launches (Claude and Magic Wand) right before OpenAI's standard 10am launch time. |
|
| ▲ | crorella 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The thrill of competition |
|
| ▲ | manquer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wouldn't that be illegal ? i.e. cartel to collude like that ? |
|
| ▲ | IhateAI 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A sign of the inevitible implosion ! |
|
| ▲ | cedws 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I wish they’d just stop pretending to care about safety, other than a few researchers at the top they care about safety only as long as they aren’t losing ground to the competition. Game theory guarantees the AI labs will do what it takes to ensure survival. Only regulation can enforce the limits, self policing won’t work when money is involved. |
| |
| ▲ | vovavili 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The last thing I would want is for excessively neurotic bureaucrats to interfere with all the mind-blowing progress we've had in the last couple of years with LLM technology. | | | |
| ▲ | thethimble 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As long as China continues to blitz forward, regulation is a direct path to losing. | | |
| ▲ | cedws 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Define "losing." Europe is prematurely regarded as having lost the AI race. And yet a large portion of Europe live higher quality lives compared to their American counterparts, live longer, and don't have to worry about an elected orange unleashing brutality on them. | | |
| ▲ | thethimble 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If the world is built on AI infrastructure (models, compute, etc.) that is controlled by the CCP then the west has effectively lost. This may lead to better life outcomes, but if the west doesn't control the whole stack then they have lost their sovereignty. This is already playing out today as Europe is dependent on the US for critical tech infrastructure (cloud, mail, messaging, social media, AI, etc). There's no home grown European alternatives because Europe has failed to create an economic environment to assure its technical sovereignty. | |
| ▲ | fakedang 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Europe has already lost the tech race - their cloud systems that their entire welfare states rely upon are all hosted on servers hosted by American private companies, which can turn them off with a flick of a switch if and when needed. When the welfare state, enabled by technology, falls apart, it won't take long for European society to fall apart. Except France maybe. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You mean all paths are direct paths to losing. |
|
|
