|
| ▲ | strken 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's more like you have a business making engines, each generation of engine has eventually turned out to be profitable over its lifespan, but each generation has an exponentially increasing R&D cost and your customers will switch from the old engines to a competitor if they don't like the newest generation. You're stuck racing against your competitors with the distinct possibility that your R&D costs will outgrow the market demand, and you can't stop because otherwise your customers will stop investing in your dead end tech and switch. |
| |
| ▲ | jcgrillo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And there are just tons of free engines sitting around that are basically almost as good as the newest ones... | |
| ▲ | tenuousemphasis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except this is the first generation of engine manufacturers and nobody knows if it will actually be profitable yet. | | |
| ▲ | strken 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We do know that Anthropic claims earlier models eventually turned a profit, and OpenAI is presumably the same. What is in doubt is whether past performance is an indicator of future results. How long will the ever-increasing R&D expenditure keep paying off? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ndiddy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| OpenAI won't be able to cut R&D spend and collect rent on their existing models as long as the Chinese models keep up the pace of being ~6 months behind them for a fraction of the price. |
|
| ▲ | rwmj 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And if you wait 12 months, someone will be giving away lamps for free that work just as well. |
|
| ▲ | darth_avocado 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And then someone will come up with lamp pro max and you’ll be out of business. You realize why R&D exists in tech companies even though it’s a cost center right? |
