| ▲ | drob518 5 hours ago | |||||||
It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s all a game. | ||||||||
| ▲ | sanderjd 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Yes, but it's good for everyone that the strategy of attempting to commoditize the cash cow of a competitor exists. | ||||||||
| ▲ | overfeed an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> ...drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down Anthropic et al recently proposed a supranational AI governing body designed to slow everyone down (euphemistically calling it "AI pacing"). Are the Pacer signatories losing? | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | basch 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
No. Opening it is to commoditize and reduce the price to use. This increases participation and creates new consumers and demand. Demand creates justification for further creation. All the participants know it’s both a race to the bottom and a competition for premium tier at the same time. It’s two different games, meta in only really playing one of them successfully. | ||||||||
| ||||||||