All AI companies are valued as if they'll win the AI race. Problem is, only one can win *

* That is, if a lab like Deepseek doesn't release a "good enough" model for the cost of electricity + a thin margin. Then all AI company lose and all consumers win.

▲

brap 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> only one can win

Why? I mean, if you assume that the moment some threshold of intelligence is reached it will suddenly explode and self-improve at a pace no one would be able to ever catch up with, then yes probably only one can win. But I think it’s more sci-fi than reality which is often more nuanced and boring.

	▲	pjmlp 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Late stage capitalism, everyone's curve must exponential growth, yet the amount of customers on planet Earth is limited.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

HumblyTossed 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And that one can only win if it convinces leaders to regulate AI so that opensource models don't get good enough.

	▲	throw1234567891 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They can limit whatever they want within their own borders. Who cares. It’s only ~350m people. The rest of the world benefits while the US dismantles its own relevance.

▲

LelouBil a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ?

Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages.

Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ?

Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see in movies and TVs ?

I'm not arguing, I am just struggling to understand what it usually means when somebody says that, it's not like competitors will go bankrupt the second OpenAI/Anthropic/Whatever does something specific.

▲

slowin a day ago | parent | next [-]

I think "winning" means being able to live up to their valuations. The market is not big enough for all of these companies to be worth as much as they claim. In that sense they must "win" or experience massive downward adjustment in their values.

▲

tensor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In that case I doubt there will ever be a "winner" because these valuations are not based in reality.

▲

iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev [-]

So “winning” could mean everyone experiences massive downward adjustment, but your valuation is still highest?

	▲	slowin a day ago \| parent [-]
		There's probably some holes in the analogy is you stretch it far enough. I'm hoping to "win" as a user by local models hitting a performance breakthrough and not needing any of these companies. I think the OP was generally making the point I mentioned though, that there's not room for all of these valuations, maybe one.

▲

threatofrain 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People believe that it will be a market with very few winners.

▲

ahartmetz 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ?

Creating a world-ruling AGI which feels mild sympathy for its creators, sharing some table scraps with them. Not sure if /s...

▲

magic_hamster 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> good enough" model for the cost of electricity

This already exists, in several tiers, depending on what you can afford to run (in terms of VRAM).

Deepseek V Flash 0731 is already good enough for many things.

▲

iLoveOncall 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And winning the AI race means being the biggest loser. LLMs aren't profitable.