Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 323 posts

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#311

Post by phodo »

nick3443 wrote: post #61
phodo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One view is that it’s not first mover, but first arriver advantage. Whoever gets to AgI (the fabled city of gold or silver?, Ag pun intended) will achieve exponential gains from that point forward, and that serves as the moat in the limit. So you can think of it as buying a delayed moat, with an option price equivalent to the investment required until you get to that point in time. Either you believe in that view or…

What if the AGI takes an entire data center to process a few tokens per second. Is the still a first-arriver advantage? Seems like the first to make it cheaper than an equivalent-cost employee (fully loaded incl hiring and training) will begin to see advantage.

Good point. It’s 2 conditions and both have to be true : - Arrive first - Use that first arrival to innovate with your new AGI pet / overlord to stay exponentially ahead

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#312

Post by lesuorac »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #102
lesuorac wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Back then, Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability [citation needed] Google's goal was always advertising just like every other search engine.

Please read the academic paper by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, available at this link: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-p... You might find their perspective on advertising surprising. Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.

What perspective? The only comments about an ad is in the first paragraph which is just "To make matter worse, some advertisers attempt to gain people’s attention by taking measures meant to mislead automated search engines." [1]

Nothing in the paper states or suggests they are anti-ads. Hell, Ads can even work well with their description of page rank. Display ads along side the search results and if a user clicks it then rate the ad higher and if they don't down weight it akin to what you're doing with non-ad links.

> Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.

Because the counterpoint of Google isn't applicable. You can't be like "X is ok because it's similar to Y and Y was ok.". X (OpenAI) isn't similar to Y (Google); Google always planned to do Ads and it's just their stance of keeping them distinct from results that changed over time. A better argument would to pick a Y of Reddit or something that took years to actually generate revenue.

OpenAI should be fine for quite some time though because what else is there to burn billions of dollars investing for people?

[1]: https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/Brin98Anatom...

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#314

Post by [deleted] »

tiffanyh wrote: post #172

> defensible moat … investors mistakenly thought investing in Netscape was a good way to bet on the future Yet Chrome for Google did help create a moat. A moat that’s is so strong the DoJ is investigating if Chrome should be a forced divesture from Google/Aplhabet. Note: I do generally agree with the article, but this also shows why you shouldn’t use analogies to reason.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#315

Post by yalogin »

cs702 wrote: post #21

This rings true to my ears: > There is no technical moat in this field, and so OpenAI is the epicenter of an investment bubble. Thus, effectively, OpenAI is to this decade’s generative-AI revolution what Netscape was to the 1990s’ internet revolution. The revolution is real, but it’s ultimately going to be a commodity technology layer, not the foundation of a defensible proprietary moat. In 1995 investors mistakenly…

This is what I have been asking people in the know too. It seems like developing this is straight forward. So not sure why OpenAI has a lead. That too with how fast things are, the gap should be instantly closed.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#316

Post by chrisvalleybay »

sumedh wrote: post #226
chrisvalleybay wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's still one thing missing here: the browser. I do not agree with Gruber's analogy that the LLM is the browser. The interface to the LLM is the browser. We have seen some attempts at creating good browsers for LLM but we do not have NetScape, IE/Edge, Chrome, FF, Brave yet. Once we do, you would very easily be jumping between these models, and even letting the browser pick a model for you based on the type of qu…

> The interface to the LLM is the browser That is one of the reason why ChatGpt has a desktop App, so that users can directly interact with it and give access to users files/Apps as well.

But it isn't a browser, because it only interfaces to one single LLM. You need to have multiple models there (like visiting websites).

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#317

Post by [deleted] »

lesuorac wrote: post #312
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the academic paper by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, available at this link: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-p... You might find their perspective on advertising surprising. Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.

What perspective? The only comments about an ad is in the first paragraph which is just "To make matter worse, some advertisers attempt to gain people’s attention by taking measures meant to mislead automated search engines." [1] Nothing in the paper states or suggests they are anti-ads. Hell, Ads can even work well with their description of page rank. Display ads along side the search results and if a user clicks it…

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#318

Post by sirspacey »

saurik wrote: post #149
bruce511 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no technical moat, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moat. Amazon might be a good analogy here. I'm old enough to remember when Amazon absorbed billions of VC money, making losses year over year. Every day there was some new article about how insane it was. There's no technical moat around online sales. And lots of companies sell online. But Amazon is still the biggest (by a long long way) (at least in the…

A couple other comments touch on the point I want to make, but I feel they don't nail it hard enough: if today you told me you had a website that was 100% technologically identical to Amazon, but you were willing to make slightly less money, you'd still have no products... as a user I'd have no reason to go there, but then without users there is no reason to sell there, so you have a circular bootstrapping issue. Tha…

That’s how it is today, but that was also the case at the birth of e-commerce. Amazon was a large eCom store but many others were successful and switching for price was common. Not so much anymore.

Defaults are powerful over time.

Post reply on HN