41–50 of 86 posts
> companies building AI developer tools. There it is, that's where you want to be - selling shovels during the gold rush.
The only one selling shovels is nvidia.
There are shovel sellers which are making tools.
Then there are application makers that end users see that are made with shovels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is crypto is useless and AI is useful. That’s a pretty important difference.
> The difference is crypto is useless and AI is useful. Is that why Stripe, TicketMaster, Moneygram, Checkout.com, TransferGo, VISA, etc and many other companies continue to use it? > That’s a pretty important difference. Nope. The important difference is that crypto has energy efficient alternative methods of consensus available today such as proof-of-stake, byzantine fault tolerance (BFT), etc and even a former PoW…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you say handing out money like candy, it makes me think I should try to apply to something. I am spending most of my time doing low-paying contracts that integrate generative AI for other companies or startups. And then I use that money to build out my own project for a few weeks before I run out of money and have to get another contract. If it's actually easy to get money? How would I find a VC who would be imp…
You have to be a bit of a charlatan to really get the money. If you’re not willing to do that then maybe it’s not for you.
But can you elaborate on why you put it like that, "a bit of a charlatan"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Use” is inaccurate. Nope. Inaccurate to you . They would NOT use it if it was "useless" . The truth is, they continue to use crypto in their services.
> would NOT use it if it was "useless" Of course they would. It’s useless, not worthless. If it were useful they’d actually use it.
It is being used and businesses are using it in their products today.
Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them and their customers and would instead announce that they are shutting it down after trialling it. They seem to have seen utility in it for their use-case. The same can be said for the other companies I mentioned.
Again, they are using it and that is the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The difference is crypto is useless and AI is useful. Is that why Stripe, TicketMaster, Moneygram, Checkout.com, TransferGo, VISA, etc and many other companies continue to use it? > That’s a pretty important difference. Nope. The important difference is that crypto has energy efficient alternative methods of consensus available today such as proof-of-stake, byzantine fault tolerance (BFT), etc and even a former PoW…
[flagged]
You do realize what you just said is complete absolutist nonsense?
> and 90% of AI companies will thrive.
I think you know that this is also nonsense and you have really confirmed that we are indeed in another AI bubble. A hype cycle reinforced by VC capital inflating expectations once again.
The reality is this: 10% of these AI companies will thrive with the remaining 90% shutting down.
The major gatekeepers (OpenAI, Google, Meta) who own the AI models and the heavily VC backed ones are part of that 10%. The 90% of late comers and pre-revenue copycats are climbing an uphill battle which will end in a merger or mostly them end up shutting down as their credits and VC capital being depleted after generating little to no revenue for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They will still do that, but within the context of having an application that takes advantage of recent developments in AI. Whether that's smart or not is an open question, time will tell. But, given that YC is a seed level investor (with some follow on capacity) it makes sense because the 'downstream' VCs are handing out money like candy to start-ups that can plausibly claim to be AI startups. The idea is that some…
When you say handing out money like candy, it makes me think I should try to apply to something. I am spending most of my time doing low-paying contracts that integrate generative AI for other companies or startups. And then I use that money to build out my own project for a few weeks before I run out of money and have to get another contract. If it's actually easy to get money? How would I find a VC who would be imp…
More about this:
https://jacquesmattheij.com/three-roads-to-the-top-of-the-mo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The difference is crypto is useless and AI is useful. Is that why Stripe, TicketMaster, Moneygram, Checkout.com, TransferGo, VISA, etc and many other companies continue to use it? > That’s a pretty important difference. Nope. The important difference is that crypto has energy efficient alternative methods of consensus available today such as proof-of-stake, byzantine fault tolerance (BFT), etc and even a former PoW…
[flagged]
I would expect the failure rate of AI startups to be ~ equal to the failure rate of all start-ups. AI isn't something magical that will cause your startup to have better chances in the marketplace, all of the other caveats still apply (timing, luck, execution).
So lets say between 1 and 10% of AI companies will survive and between 1 and 3% will be home-runs.
The AI feeding frenzy in VC land is reminiscent of the early days of the public access internet aka the .com boom. That corrected itself sharply but eventually most of those .com boom dreams came out, just a bit later and lots of VCs lost lots of money because they got the timing wrong. Every time there is a major shift in tech you see this pattern repeat but I don't recall seeing it on that scale again since ~2000,…
That whole internet bubble, and where's the internet now, pfft
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would NOT use it if it was "useless" Of course they would. It’s useless, not worthless. If it were useful they’d actually use it.
> If it were useful they’d actually use it. It is being used and businesses are using it in their products today. Companies like Moneygram would not use Stellar if it was useless for them and their customers and would instead announce that they are shutting it down after trialling it. They seem to have seen utility in it for their use-case. The same can be said for the other companies I mentioned. Again, they are usi…
Useless, not worthless. I happen to be familiar with that case. It’s great for sales. Useless for performance. (It might become useful one day.) Hence, marginal-enough adoption and a lot of marketing.
A couple years ago I counselled a friend in banking to do something with Ripple. It helped him win deals with crypto firms, and likely helped their wealth managers, too. Worthful. But useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Around 85% profit. It wouldn't be possible to get the same result from ChatGPT without a ton of prompt engineering and manually retrieving data and inserting that into your prompts. Plus, we don't just do a single API call and call it a day. A single button press in our app can set off a process which calls the OpenAI API over a dozen times plus retrieves data from several other APIs to help with the prompting
out of curiosity, are you using openai's base models or are you fine tuning them? and what tech stack is your app using?
We use the base models but once fine tuning becomes available on 3.5/4 we will be looking into that