zlacker

> win the AI race

I keep seeing that term, but if it does not mean "AI arms race" or "AI surveillance race", what does it mean?

Those are the only explanations that I have found, and neither is any race that I would like to see anyone win.

>>Findec+(OP)
It’s a framing device to justify the money, the idea being the first company (to what?) will own the market.

>>Findec+(OP)
It’s a graft to keep people distracted and allow for positioning as we fall off the end of the fossil energy boom.

>>Findec+(OP)
A significant number of AI companies and investors are hoping to build a machine god. This is batshit insane, but I suppose it might be possible. Which wouldn't make it any more sane.

But when they say, "Win the AI race," they mean, "Build the machine god first." Make of this what you will.

>>Findec+(OP)
Big tech businesses are convinced that there must be some profitable business model for AI, and are undeterred by the fact that none has yet been found. They want to be the first to get there, raking in that sweet sweet money (even though there's no evidence yet that there is money to be made here). It's industry-wide FOMO, nothing more.

>>Findec+(OP)
Being too far ahead for competitors to catch up, similar to how google won browsers, amazon won distribution, etc

>>bigstr+57
It will be genuinely interesting to see what happens first, the discovery of such a model, or the bubble bursting.

>>ekidd+n6
On the edge of my seat waiting to see what hits us first, a massive economic collapse when the hype runs out, or the Torment Nexus.

>>bigstr+57
People keep saying this but it's simply untrue. AI inference is profitable. Openai and Anthropic have 40-60% gross margins. If they stopped training and building out future capacity they would already be raking in cash.

They're losing money now because they're making massive bets on future capacity needs. If those bets are wrong, they're going to be in very big trouble when demand levels off lower than expected. But that's not the same as demand being zero.

>>hannas+xu
those gross profit margins aren't that useful since training at fixed capacity is continually getting cheaper, so there's a treadmill effect where staying in business requires training new models constantly to not fall behind. If the big companies stop training models, they only have a year before someone else catches up with way less debt and puts them out of business.

>>FeteCo+Gm
It really seems like the market has locked in on one of those two things being a guaranteed outcome at this point.

>>bigstr+57
Typically in capitalism, if there is any profit, the race is towards zero profit. The alternative is a race to bankrupt all competitors at enormous cost in order to jack up prices and recoup the losses as a monopoly (or duopoly, or some other stable arrangement). I assume the latter is the goal, but that means burning through like 50%+ of american gdp growth just to be undercut by china.

Imo I would be extremely angry if I owned any spacex equity. At least nvidia might be selling to china in the short term... what's the upside for spacex?

>>Frankl+fH
> The alternative is a race to bankrupt all competitors at enormous cost in order to jack up prices and recoup the losses as a monopoly

I don't know of an instance of this happening successfully.

>>adgjls+aB
Only if training new models leads to better models. If the newly trained models are just a bit cheaper but not better most users wont switch. Then the entrenched labs can stop training so much and focus on profitable inference

>>Walter+NP
Walmart? It's certainly more successful in physical markets

>>HDThor+PP
If they really have 40-60% gross margins, as training costs go down, the newly trained models could offer the same product at half the price.

>>Walter+NP
Amazon

>>hannas+xu
> Openai and Anthropic have 40-60% gross margins.

Stop this trope please. We (1) don't really know what their margins are and (2) because of the hard tie-in to GPU costs/maintenance we don't know (yet) what the useful life (and therefore associated OPEX) is of GPUs.

> If they stopped training and building out future capacity they would already be raking in cash.

That's like saying "if car companies stopped researching how to make their cars more efficient, safer, more reliable they'd be more profitable"

>>kuschk+eS
See Amazon

>>jabron+M51
See Walmart

>>Walter+Im2
Are you saying that Amazon is a successful monopoly, or that Amazon is even with massive expenses still not a full monopoly?

>>Walter+Im2
Different markets entirely—I can't walk into amazon, and I don't order online from Walmart.

>>Walter+NP
taxi apps, delivery apps, social media apps—all of these require a market that's extremely expensive to build but is also extremely lucrative to exploit and difficult to unseat. You see this same model with big-box stores displacing local stores. The secret to making a lot of money under capitalism is to have a lot of money to begin with.

>>kuschk+rS
Well thats why the labs are building these app level products like claude code/codex to lock their users in. Most of the money here is in business subscriptions I think, how much savings would be required for businesses to switch to products that arent better, just cheaper?

>>HDThor+2f3
I think the real lock-in is in "CLAUDE.md" and similar rulesets, which are heavily AI specific.

>>Frankl+SU2
Taxis are a government created monopoly.

None of the big-box stores have created a monopoly.

Amazon unseated behemoth Walmart with a mere $300,000 startup capital.

Musk founded his empire with $28,000.

>>kuschk+Vq2
Walmart competes with Amazon.

>>Frankl+DU2
You can order online from Walmart:

https://www.walmart.com/

Amazon can ship it to a location near you.