> 200 billion dollars a year on a 30 billion dollar a year business that is growing does not really sound as bad as the author makes it out to be
How do you know it's not "as bad"? Whenever things got that bad a crash followed, a lot of people lost their shirts and savings. For them it's that bad and then some. Why mislead these people?
> The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x and reducing inference cost by half... then simply fire software engineers.
OK, I didn't know that brutal/shmutal was the only way to do business these days. If I could only get with the program, I would understand how rosy-smelly the situation is and not at all "as bad as the author makes it out to be".
> The thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
Oh, wait, I thought it wasn't that bad? Which way is it? Brutal/shmutal failed to work? But, but but, you said, you promised... "not as bad".
Besides, Chinese competition isn't the only way to commoditize AI, new tech developments are the single most significant risk in tech - a well known fact.
> If you don't have a monopoly, you cannot rugpull and 6x the costs on the consumer.
Anyone who invests while convinced that only a monopoly would save his investments has got his brain screwed on backwards,
>Anyone who invests while convinced that only a monopoly would save his investments has got his brain screwed on backwards
Whats the common trait between Warren Buffet and Peter Thiel? They only invest in companies that are monopolies or on their way to being monopolies. As Thiel (who very much has his head screwed on backwards) says "Competition is for losers"
What does Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Gates, and Musk have in common? They own monopolies.
So yes! The only way these companies are going to make their investments back is by being monopolies.
Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results
> "Competition is for losers"
That's how we got where we are, losing the global competition game, high polarization, inflation, debt, and wars. Communist China managed to surge ahead mainly due to their purposeful development of a highly competitive industry and market. Oh, the irony.
> The only way these companies are going to make their investments back is by being monopolies.
Well, they aren't and they won't be, the game has changed. Seems like when you say "monopoly" you mean "on the US market" but that's not enough to sustain anything resembling a good life here. You may be thinking of an isolated and self-sufficient national economy but that's a mirage. The world is still global and only a major extinction event, like an all out world war, can change that - do you want to go there?
Buffet, Thiel, Gates, Musk, etc have nice bunkers to hide in... you don't.
How do you know it's not "as bad"? Whenever things got that bad a crash followed, a lot of people lost their shirts and savings. For them it's that bad and then some. Why mislead these people?
> The obvious way to recoup spend is to grow, rugpull by cranking up costs 6x and reducing inference cost by half... then simply fire software engineers.
OK, I didn't know that brutal/shmutal was the only way to do business these days. If I could only get with the program, I would understand how rosy-smelly the situation is and not at all "as bad as the author makes it out to be".
> The thing that will actually torpedo this massive investment are the open source open weight chinese models that commoditize the entire endeavor.
Oh, wait, I thought it wasn't that bad? Which way is it? Brutal/shmutal failed to work? But, but but, you said, you promised... "not as bad".
Besides, Chinese competition isn't the only way to commoditize AI, new tech developments are the single most significant risk in tech - a well known fact.
> If you don't have a monopoly, you cannot rugpull and 6x the costs on the consumer.
Anyone who invests while convinced that only a monopoly would save his investments has got his brain screwed on backwards,