| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
"Arms race" is the term used colloquially to describe the dynamic that emerges in "winner-take-all" markets. It seems that the frontier labs believe they're participants in a winner-take-all market. Therefore they're in "an arms race." Winner-take-all markets do not require that the winner literally destroys the losers, but only that the winner enjoys disproportionate returns compared to their actual superiority. Whether or not this is actually true is TBD, but I think you're naive to think the frontier labs do not believe this to be true. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sobellian 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I don't know why you think I'm taking anything literally, cf. my first comment. I understand what a metaphorical arms race is. I don't think that Anthropic can forestall others' AI development by getting there first. It can't be literal destruction. It can't be economic destruction (some actors interested in it aren't motivated by money). What's left? I'm all ears. As far as naivete, wouldn't it be more naive to take their EA claims at face value, rather than the more realistic assumption that they like money? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zozbot234 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Creative destruction is absolutely a thing in the market, but the way things are going it seems more likely that open source models will just destroy everything else as far as most users are concerned. The big proprietary labs will be effectively left with Fable, GPT-Pro and Gemini Deep Research - stuff that by all indications needs very large scale compute to even feasibly run. We'll probably find out that each has its own strengths, weaknesses and viable niches, so there's no reason to expect any of those models to utterly destroy the others. They can all survive as specialty services. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||