I mean.. get into it! Isn't it much more interesting for you to defend the real world strength of your argument than it is to just gotcha the article? It's highly relevant to all of this either way. Don't leave us hanging!

▲

simianwords 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I promise to do it if you agree that the one of the foundational arguments of the article is itself false. And it’s not a gotcha at all.

Once we agree on this, it could be worth discussing further.

▲

mikgp 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ok, so one last question - I think folks like Ed Zitron are too much I. The bear camp, he’s “AI is useless” and I’m not there, I do think AI changes the game. But everyone has been comparing OpenAI and Anthropic to the dotcom bubble, but isn’t -

The historical precedent on being able to capture value of a raw technology is not good. This is why the joke they promised us flying cars and we got ads.

So everyone says “Anthropic is like Uber”. But Uber is a service with people, not an underlying technology with commodity economics.

So in order for OpenAI and Anthropic to succeed (not google they have businesses to subsidize AI). LLMs would have to be the first technology where the businesses can capture value of the underlying technology itself.

So while I would concede that affordability is vulnerable to multiple angles of attack, I think that profitability is as well.

So what makes AI different than all previous technologies?

▲

simianwords 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Depends on what you mean by capture technology? The internet was "captured" by FAANG. What makes OpenAI different?

	▲	beepbooptheory 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No one in FAANG was selling the internet itself.

▲

11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]