Recursive self-improvement is one argument. Otherwise winner takes all seems much less likely than a OpenAI/Anthropic duopoly. For the best models, obviously other providers will have plenty of uses, but even looking at the revenue right now it's pretty concentrated at the top.

So if I'm Google I'd want a decent chunk of at least one of them.

▲

svnt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the argument for a duopoly when Kimi and Deepseek models are only months behind?

It’s a commodity in the making.

▲

fc417fc802 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's certainly how it looks right now but where's the guarantee? What happens if it turns out that deep learning on its own can't achieve AGI but someone figures out a proprietary algorithm that can? That sort of thing. Metaphorically we're a bunch of tribesmen speculating about the future potential outcomes of the space race (ie the impacts, limits, and timeline of ASI).

	▲	zarzavat 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Imagine such an AI exists. What good is AI that is so good that you cannot sell API access because it would help others to build equivalently powerful AI and compete with you? If you gatekeep, you will not make back the money you invested. If you don't gatekeep, your competitors will use your model to build competing models. I guess you can sell it to the Department of War.

▲

conradkay 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're months behind now and have very low market share, so as long as they stay months behind the duopoly/triopoly can hold.