upvote
I comprehended it just fine, that's why I used "was" to begin with. My comment, which you "omitted to comprehend" (sic), ironically refers to their non-profit heritage, which should make them double sensitive to good causes like not destroying the world.
reply
arguably these days it's even more non profit than before and getting more so.
reply
The non-profitest company in the entire world
reply
However, should they be the one to survive the inevitable wave of collapses, they will be absurdly profitable, and that's what all the investors are betting on - the usual VC playbook of creating an entirely new market (or destroying aka "disrupting" established players) fueled by absurd amounts of money, surviving until everyone is hooked and the competition is gone, and then jack up the prices.
reply
The last one standing will probably a chip maker able to distill the frontier without having sunk too much capital advancing the frontier, essentially Google, Apple, Nvidia, Samsung and all the Chinese labs
reply
And what makes you think first, there's a moat and, second, the demand is not elastic?
reply
Don't ask me that question, for all I care this entire bubble can finally collapse for good, I'd like to be able to afford things again.

But unfortunately, too many people who are already too rich for their own good have fully bought into it.

reply
Never mind the fact that if any one, or even more than one, player gracefully bows out nothing changes.
reply
If any one major player bows out, they could take everyone else out by opening up their model. There’s definitely a little bit of MAD going on.
reply
Good point! The same would happen if another player develops a frontier-comparable open model.
reply
If A or OAI dropped out, there would be pretty crazy financial backlash from the whole inverted pyramid of investment and capital allocations that is built on top of their projected growth.
reply
that backlash is inevitable anyway. that pyramid is based upon projections which are flat out insane.
reply
Why are people expected to lose their goddamn minds every 2-3 months like they've never seen an AI before.

I have a secret: if you don't use AI, the new releases aren't very impressive. I'm bored out of my mind with people doing galaxy brain memes every 2 months while on the whole.... they're still boring zombies, and only getting boring-er and boring-er. There's nothing more boring than being impressed by the latest AI model.

In terms of the projections being insane you can quantify it: each model costs something to train, but after that the training has only captured so much unique new value in terms of model capability, and the race is on to drain that value as rapidly as possible. Everyone is competing to drain the same value. This generation of models makes slop video games for example, and slop video games rapidly became the most boring thing on the planet.

reply
I tell you 3 times I was genuinely excited with AI. 1 - original Google transformers release (hope for future) 2- opus 4.6 comes out (first time an llm can do real programming for me and the code is good) 3 - Qwen3.8-Flash-Next comes out - first time a model i can run myself at good speed can do real programming and is almost as good as opus.

Those are genuine breakthroughs.

reply
Again that suggests that the end goal is to use AI. As long as using AI is your goal, using AI is also the definition of succeeding at your goal.

Any society-wide productivity gain was lost when software engineers ceased collaborating with each other in good faith. In OSS, they stopped collaborating. At companies, they stopped collaborating. One by one, in silence, alone, we have been bereft of our vision, our team spirit, our passion, our uniqueness. We no longer have the will to serve others, or even to serve each other. We stopped building our future. We will accept whatever society AI makes for use like fucking cattle or lemmings or like dogs.

AI hasn't elevated humanity, it has taken a massive dump on it.

reply
[dead]
reply