691–700 of 916 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, LLMs are exceptional at coding and they very well could displace some jobs. But you'll always need people at the helm who know what they're doing too.
Also that developers make for good early adopters for tech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not because there is no path to profitability (they make a ton of money on inference), they just spend a lot on R&D.
> they make a ton of money on inference So it is stated, but is it actually true? I am not convinced. Besides, it's not as if they can suddenly stop training models, the moment you do that you've spelled a death sentence for profitablity because Google and open source will very quickly undercut a 15 year break even timeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't want to be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content. The addictive toxic content will go the way of tobacco and explore new markets. Back in 2010 around 11% of the population of Indonesia was connected to the internet. Currently it's closer to 80% - largely via mobile phones. That's approximately 200mln new users. Nigeria and Pakistan are going throu…
I'm reminded of a video from the 80's/90's where researchers took a TV to the Amazon to see how "live off the land" tribes reacted to high technology. Apparently they stopped doing everything and just wanted to watch TV all day. And that was just regular old TV. Short form video is a special kind of crack. I see even old people getting hypnotized by it. And even worse, they're terrible at determining if something is…
Which is usually back to back with the thought that in bygone times "the human mind used to be cleaner / healthier / smarter and it was slowly destroyed by modern living"
There's not that much difference between our behavior and that of a chicken fixated on the chalk line in front of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With coding (it's not really coding per se that matters imo it's more like dynamic logic writ large) it's a land grab strategy. They want to get established as the de facto standard and get a whole bunch of people on their platform so by the time they need to "get profitable" they have a captive audience, a leg-up on other labs. It's a tale as old as time, that's why ubers used to be cheaper than cost.
It's a strategy as old as time, but it's a strategy that usually fails. Spending a lot of money on customer capture only works when customers are actually solidly captured. Most markets have fairly heavy competition and customers will only stay captured as long as there is no substantial cost to staying captive. Take Uber as an example: yes they've raised prices to become profitable, but not to the insanely profitabl…
I like to call this the "Yahoo Effect"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> where you can make money and have a really profitable business I am not convinced. Nobody is making money, every player is losing money hand over fist.
Frontier model developers don't make money, but inference providers do. For open weight models there is a healthy market of inference providers that operate profitably without VC backing.
Was Sora just a honeypot to get a media company (ie Disney) to invest a lot of money into OpenAI? Maybe it achieved its objective?
So whatever reason they say to shut this down, it was more important than 1B investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could argue all day about what should be at the forefront, but addictive content isn't going anywhere, because addicts pay up. In this case, maybe not enough to offset the costs; or maybe it just wasn't addictive enough. But it's still early days.
> because addicts pay up. I think it turns out they don't, not really anyway. And that's exactly why Sora is dead. They figured out that addictive AI slop has been so thoroughly commoditized that you can get it on a ton of other platforms for free, so people don't want to pay for it.
What happens when other platforms start trying to get people to pay? I think there's a race to find a revenue stream for this stuff. As soon as one company can find a way to monetize it, they'll all end up doing it. Right now, we're in a place where companies are losing so much money, they have to decide how much they can lose before they pull the plug.
OpenAI just proved you cannot burn money indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, LLMs are exceptional at coding and they very well could displace some jobs. But you'll always need people at the helm who know what they're doing too.
> To be fair, LLMs are exceptional at coding No they aren't. Any decently skilled human blows them out of the water. They can do better than an untrained human, but that's not much of an achievement.
Modern models like Opus / Gemini 3 are great coding companions; they are perfectly capable of building clean code given the right context and prompt.
At the end of the day it’s the same rule of garbage in -> garbage out, if you don’t have the right context / skills / guidance you can easily end up with bad code as you could with good code.
I had so much fun making videos with my mom when it came out. During the first two weeks, we made over 100 cameo videos together - we were constantly running up against the upload limit. It unleashed tons of genuine creativity, joy, and laughter from us. After those first two weeks though, we just… didn’t use it again. The novelty wore off and there wasn’t anything really to bring us back. That was the real downfall…
Humans are very good at pattern recognition, even if you generate different stuff, you still see a pattern, either in the cutting, color, cadence of movements, the color grading, camera lens used, everything, your mind will tag it as slop. Essentially you are watching the same videos over and over subconsciously
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think consumers are slightly smarter now that they don't want to be drawn into this kind of addictive toxic content. The addictive toxic content will go the way of tobacco and explore new markets. Back in 2010 around 11% of the population of Indonesia was connected to the internet. Currently it's closer to 80% - largely via mobile phones. That's approximately 200mln new users. Nigeria and Pakistan are going throu…
I'm reminded of a video from the 80's/90's where researchers took a TV to the Amazon to see how "live off the land" tribes reacted to high technology. Apparently they stopped doing everything and just wanted to watch TV all day. And that was just regular old TV. Short form video is a special kind of crack. I see even old people getting hypnotized by it. And even worse, they're terrible at determining if something is…
Not to say it's a hallucination, but, to modern standards, if this were publicly funded research, it seems like it would have been a gross violation of ethics or other non-technical criteria. Interested to see how people think of it in later years, e.g., now.