> Oh, give me a break. I know the law around this incredibly well.

Then don’t make BS up like implying Anthropic is a monopolist for the crime of competence.

> tell me you don't understand how a small quantitative gap can result in a step change in capability

The law does not give a darn about this. Being a good competitive option does not make you a league of your own. If I invent a new flavor of shake, the Emerald Slide, am I a monopolist in shakes because I’m the only one selling Emerald Slides? If you go and then start a local business reselling shakes and I’m your only supplier, am I a monopolist then? Absolutely not.

▲

tekacs 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You do realize that I called out in my post they are absolutely not a monopoly by the law, right? I know all-too-well what the definition is.

We have a similar situation in mobile where Apple may not be considered a monopoly, but people have walked around for a decade with a supercomputer in their pocket that is wildly underused.

Things have gotten faster; things are different than they were decades ago when a lot of this was devised.

The reality of the matter is that some of us just want to see innovation actually happen apace, and not see 5, 10, or 30 years of slowdown while we litigate whether or not such a company is holding all the cards, while everyone is collectively waiting at the spigot for a company to get its shit together because we're not allowed to fix the situation.

For what it's worth, I'm hopeful that the other model providers will catch up and put us in a situation where this conversation is irrelevant.

What I'm afraid of is a situation where we see continued divergence, and we end up with another Apple situation.

▲

nandomrumber 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You’re welcome to start OpenSpigot yourself, and see how investors feel about you giving away your technical / IP / market advantage on launch day.

▲

gjsman-1000 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> “we are self-preferencing, and the FTC should really take a look at us, even if we're technically not a monopoly right now”

That is not calling out that they are “absolutely not a monopoly by the law” in any way, shape, or form. You’re framing it as though they aren’t by a technicality, when they aren’t anywhere near discussion by even the most extreme of legal theories. You won’t find Lina Khan or Margarethe Vestager, both ousted for going too far, complaining about Anthropic.

> “We have a similar situation in mobile where Apple may not be considered a monopoly, but people have walked around for a decade with a supercomputer in their pocket that is wildly underused.”

In that we can’t run a Torrent client to download illegally redistributed media 99% of the time? Otherwise, in what way, are they underused? For the degrees of public addiction, a more underutilized phone would be a social benefit.

	▲	tekacs 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Let me back up what you're saying. They absolutely are not a monopoly today by any definition, by any stretch, in any conceivable way. I'm looking forward. Things are moving very quickly. As I said above, I'm afraid of us diverging into another Apple situation in the future. If I suggest that they should be looked at and thought about, it's not for today, it's for tomorrow. If divergence continues. Because as with everything in AI, it might hit us a lot faster than people expect. Hell, given their approach to morality, I suspect that Anthropic folks have already thought deeply about these sorts of concerns. That's why it's actually a lot more in character for them to be doing this not due to self-preferencing, but due to unaffordability, which - if you look at my first post - is what I said seems to be happening. Suffice to say that I have a graveyard of things that I think phones could have been, where unfortunately we've ended up with these - as you say - addicting consumerist messes. Gonna stop here so I don't flood the thread. We're getting very off topic.