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

51–60 of 323 posts

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

#51

Post by marcyb5st »

toddmorey wrote: post #40
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…

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

An algorithmic breakthrough IMHO. If someone finds out either how to get 10x performance per parameter or how to have a model actually model real causality (to some degree) they will have a moat.

Also, I suspect that the next breakthrough will be kept under wraps and no papers will be published explaining it.

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

#52

Post by andrewflnr »

trhway wrote: post #46
kridsdale1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Network effects are a moat. A vertically integrated system that people depend on with non-portable integrations is a moat. Regulatory Capture is a moat.

What is the moat of the Google Search? To me the LLM is the first and the only disruptor so far of the Search.

It used to be their high search quality, difficult to replicate technology. Now they don't have one.

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

#53

Post by Jyaif »

toddmorey wrote: post #40
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…

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

> curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI

By knowing a lot about me, like the details of my relationships, my interests, my work. The LLM would then be able to be better function than the other LLMs. OpenAI already made steps in that direction by learning facts about you.

By offering services only possible by integrating with other industries, like restaurants, banks, etc... This take years to do, and other companies will take years to catch up, especially if you setup exclusivity clauses. There's lots of ways to slow down your competitors when you are the first to do something.

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

#55

Post by mmaunder »

toddmorey wrote: post #40
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…

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

DeepSeek’s recent progress with V3 being a case in point which reportedly only cost $5.5M.

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

#56

Post by sdesol »

scarmig wrote: post #48
toddmorey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

1) Push for regulations around data provenance. If you train on anything, you have to prove that you had the rights to train on it. This would kill all but the largest providers in the USA, though China would still pose a problem. You could work around that bit by making businesses and consumers liable for usage of models that don't have proof of provenance. 2) If you had some secret algorithm that substantially outp…

> China would still pose a problem

Not if regulation prohibits LLMs from China, which isn't that far fetched to be honest.

I think LLM will turn into a commodity product and if you want to dominate with a commodity product, you need to provide twice the value at half the cost. Open AI will need a breakthrough in reliability and/or inference cost to really create a moat.

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

#57

Post by phodo »

toddmorey wrote: post #40
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…

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

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 you don’t. It’s more of an emotional / philosophical investment thesis, with a low probability of occurrence, but with a massive expected value.Meanwhile, consumers and the world benefit.

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

#58

Post by skydhash »

ijustlovemath wrote: post #47
bravura wrote: post #35

People keep saying stuff like this, but I don't believe it: "There is no technical moat in this field, and so OpenAI is the epicenter of an investment bubble." AI progress is driven by strong valuable data. Detailed important conversation with a chatbot are much more valuable that quick search queries. As LLMs extend past web UIs, there is even more interaction data to capture and learn from. The company that capture…

What do you think they've been building these multimodal models with? If I had Google application logs from the past few decades I would absolutely be transforming it and loading into my training dataset. I would not be surprised if Google/Meta/Msft are not doing this already When the big companies say they're running out of data, I think they mean it literally. They have hoovered up everything external and internal…

Digital data are only a tiny part of the influx of information that people interact with. It's the same error platforms made with releasing movies straight to their services. Yes, people watch more movies at home, but going to cinemas is a whole experience that encompasses more than just watching a movie. Yes, books are great, but traveling and tutoring is much more impactful.

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

#59

Post by malux85 »

toddmorey wrote: post #40
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…

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

Legislation, if you can’t compete on merit then regulate.

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

#60

Post by andy_ppp »

marcyb5st wrote: post #51
toddmorey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious if anyone has ideas how an LLM provider could moat AI. They feel interchangeable like bandwidth providers and seem like it will be a never ending game of leapfrog. I thought perhaps we’d end up with a small set of few top players just based on the scale of investment but now I’ve also seen impressive gains from much smaller companies & models, too.

An algorithmic breakthrough IMHO. If someone finds out either how to get 10x performance per parameter or how to have a model actually model real causality (to some degree) they will have a moat. Also, I suspect that the next breakthrough will be kept under wraps and no papers will be published explaining it.

The people working on it will still be allowed to move companies and people talk to each other informally. These Chinese groups working on this with far fewer GPUs appear to be getting 10x results tbh. Maybe they have more GPUs than claimed but we’ll see.
Post reply on HN