41–50 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, FAANG doesn't go after ideas that look like $100 million ideas that end up becoming $100B ideas.
For example? Looking at killed by google I don’t see any obvious examples
And that's almost impossible at the moment, because there's so much progress. It's very hard to tell what the actual limitations are. But there will be some. GPT is not AGI.
Companies that think "just get 10 times as much training data, or a little tweak of the model, and those limitations will disappear!" won't last (though they may do really well at getting funding). But companies that think "the current limitations are permanent, so there's no point trying to get it to extend past that" will also not last (unless they adapt fast enough).
Since we don't currently know what the real limits are, it's very hard to give concrete advice here. Maybe "push hard against the limits, but don't bet the company on being able to overcome any particular limit".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory the same was true about the SaaS wave and the mobile wave. In practice, many startups have built valuable businesses around things that Google could've done, but didn't do successfully. The same will be true in the AI wave. In theory, FAANG-co could do it. In practice, they can't. The exceptions to this will be the things where the winner is determined by a dimension that Google will always win on. In pract…
> In theory, FAANG-co could do it. In practice, they can't. It's usually more that FAANG doesn't believe in that product. MS & Blackberry seemed pretty certain that keyboardless smartphones (the iPhone) weren't the future. That turned out to be a really bad bet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory the same was true about the SaaS wave and the mobile wave. In practice, many startups have built valuable businesses around things that Google could've done, but didn't do successfully. The same will be true in the AI wave. In theory, FAANG-co could do it. In practice, they can't. The exceptions to this will be the things where the winner is determined by a dimension that Google will always win on. In pract…
The difference in cloud hosting and gpt api costs are enormous Though no? Faang will tariff all these innovative co
As long as there is a product that users love, and a plausible path to a moat, VCs love businesses where the only bottleneck is hosting/API costs.
I think there are a few opportunities for startups that want to leverage GPT technology: 1) Fine tuning base models with data that big tech doesn't have access to. E.g legal, medical, support data. Offering custom fine-tuned private hosted models for companies that can't leverage the base models APIs due to data privacy and lack of domain specific training. 2) Using GPT on the backend to do data transformation that t…
I want to agree, but I think that’s what I thought at the dawn of Web 2.0 — no way slapping a basic CRUD UI on top of an open-source database will ever power anything but the most trivial use cases. Turns out knowing Excel and programming and NOT knowing business and design (at that point in my career) might have cost me a couple bucks.
Hell just last year I helped a neighbor get a basic informational website up for a non profit he was part of. They tried it themselves but bungled it a bit.
They want something a bit nicer now and he said they're paying someone $16k to redo it.
Most AI startups for the next couple of years are just going to be scams that work of the back of OpenAI's API. My work place is currently under an onslaught of every person thinking there's a plethora of tools to do there job for them when it's just all OpenAI in the end. I believe AI is here to stay and will revolutionize the work place. I just feel way to many people are going about it the wrong way.
Uh you could make the same accusation about processors or cloud or any base technology. I think your view here is stunningly naive. Fine tuning GPT4 produces real and tangible differences let alone building an interface for specific workflows.
OpenAI is giving us a chat-based interface to our core product, which we didn't have to build ourselves. Our platform was exclusively developer focussed (automated API integration), which has value on it's own, but was limited in reach to a technical audience.
By adding a chat interface, we get to make our tooling available to a whole new type of audience - non developers, who can "chat" with their API estate.
I personally like this balance - using AI to lower barriers and widen the reach, but the underlying offering has value standalone.
I thought this article could have been about 95% shorter (let's just say I saw high irony in the cartoon in the article about using AI to summarize needlessly wordy emails). I think the only place "GPT startups" will really thrive long term is specific niche business areas where the big boys (Google/MSFT) are not likely to want to compete. For example, there was an HN post about a legal startup that used AI for vario…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google/MS make generic software for businesses and developers. They don't really get involved in specific verticals (aside from obvious ones like cloud, gaming, marketing). Successful start-ups will be the ones taking models from big tech cos and bringing them to the boring verticals those companies have no interest in.
Then one day Google tweaks their model in an unfortunate way and you fall all the way down that vertical.