I think the points raised in the article are not that crucial for OpenAI, meaning the commercialization, non-transparency, if it will lead to AGI.
Reality is more mundane. OpenAI must show it can deliver an assistant that people can use to reliably automate some boring work, and pay up for that.
Surely Google can take the lead. But companies like Apple, Amazon, etc., view Google as a competitor, and given the choice would license or integrate OpenAI's tech instead.
There's enough space for a competitor to Google. The question is what will happen to Anthropic, Mistral, and Zuck's efforts.
I think chances are good it will work out for OpenAI. The market for flexible automation is huge, and white collar labor is very expensive. The work is repetitive, so even without a huge breakthrough, with more techniques such as tool use, reasoning, etc., the chatbots can become reliable.
OpenAI is white-hot now, and that makes it very hard to acquire, as it would ask for something outrageous. In the past, both Google and Microsoft had trouble acquiring even smaller companies.
Speaking of AGI, btw, I think they can get to it. Not all pieces are in place, and it will take more than a few years, but I think we have the critical mass and data now to model what is missing, which includes persistent memory, adding to one's experience without retraining, and focusing on things that matter for solving a problem.
But can it survive subsidization (a la IE vs Netscape Navigator) or bundling (a la Teams vs Slack)?
For example, if I have a free version of Gemini that doesn't have the insane abilities of o1 but solves 99% of the tasks that most people use LLMs for and is fully integration into Google Workspace and Android, why would I pay for ChatGPT?
For the moment, OpenAI has brand and first-mover advantage, but can it survive the commoditization of LLMs?
Also, moving past consumer applications, based on my discussions, I genuinely think that in the enterprise sector, OpenAI will lose its advantage in the long run. Most companies have very specific applications that don't necessarily need the latest and greatest model, and scaling will push them toward open models that cost a fraction of OpenAI. What do you think?
We still have both Boeing and Airbus (even Embraer). Big and small database vendors. Amazon did not kill off retail shopping or other internet vendors.
Google will likely have a hard time taking over the market in every single possible way, with no room for anybody. They are big company and make strategic decisions taking into account their other interests as well.
Dunno. I think there's room for vendors that find their sweet spot and can innovate in it. We'll see.
I think the points raised in the article are not that crucial for OpenAI, meaning the commercialization, non-transparency, if it will lead to AGI.
Reality is more mundane. OpenAI must show it can deliver an assistant that people can use to reliably automate some boring work, and pay up for that.
Surely Google can take the lead. But companies like Apple, Amazon, etc., view Google as a competitor, and given the choice would license or integrate OpenAI's tech instead.
There's enough space for a competitor to Google. The question is what will happen to Anthropic, Mistral, and Zuck's efforts.
Do you think OpenAI will eventually figure out a way to break even and become profitable or will it eventually be absorbed by Microsoft?
I think chances are good it will work out for OpenAI. The market for flexible automation is huge, and white collar labor is very expensive. The work is repetitive, so even without a huge breakthrough, with more techniques such as tool use, reasoning, etc., the chatbots can become reliable.
OpenAI is white-hot now, and that makes it very hard to acquire, as it would ask for something outrageous. In the past, both Google and Microsoft had trouble acquiring even smaller companies.
Speaking of AGI, btw, I think they can get to it. Not all pieces are in place, and it will take more than a few years, but I think we have the critical mass and data now to model what is missing, which includes persistent memory, adding to one's experience without retraining, and focusing on things that matter for solving a problem.
But can it survive subsidization (a la IE vs Netscape Navigator) or bundling (a la Teams vs Slack)?
For example, if I have a free version of Gemini that doesn't have the insane abilities of o1 but solves 99% of the tasks that most people use LLMs for and is fully integration into Google Workspace and Android, why would I pay for ChatGPT?
For the moment, OpenAI has brand and first-mover advantage, but can it survive the commoditization of LLMs?
Also, moving past consumer applications, based on my discussions, I genuinely think that in the enterprise sector, OpenAI will lose its advantage in the long run. Most companies have very specific applications that don't necessarily need the latest and greatest model, and scaling will push them toward open models that cost a fraction of OpenAI. What do you think?
That's the $100 billion question. :)
We still have both Boeing and Airbus (even Embraer). Big and small database vendors. Amazon did not kill off retail shopping or other internet vendors.
Google will likely have a hard time taking over the market in every single possible way, with no room for anybody. They are big company and make strategic decisions taking into account their other interests as well.
Dunno. I think there's room for vendors that find their sweet spot and can innovate in it. We'll see.
Makes sense. Good convo.