Open-Source AI Is Game Theoretic Optimum | Hacker News Reader

Open-Source AI Is Game Theoretic Optimum

fullydistributed.co

13 pointsitwasori10 comments

Interesting headline. But the content doesn’t seem to argue from a game-theoretic perspective. What signifies a game-theoretic optimum is that no individual player can improve their outcome by changing strategy. The OP seems to think what’s good for users is a game-theoretic optimum. It’s usually not.

I agree, I was interested in learning how open-source would be an optimal strategy for AI model designers from a game theory perspective. The post barely had any of that, with weak justifications for its assertions. For that matter, I would have a hard time believing it is an optimal strategy anyway

This overlooks a lot of business dynamics.

Open source is great at developing efficient tools, but it is famously terrible at marketing them, or turning them into products usable by the mass. That’s because making a tool, and building a product is very different.

Private companies are most able to build products for reasons that wouldn’t fit in a comment. It is very possible that open source keeps on giving these private companies the foundation to build products - just like Linux gave Silicon Valley the foundation for the Web - but very unlikely that these open source tools become the consumer facing products everybody uses.

Then also come into play existing power dynamics. Even though they are late in the game - Apple/Google are still in prime position to build the top conversational assistants / because they dominate “Siri”/“hey Google.” It’s not possible on iOS to change the default chat engine. If I hold my AirPods, it goes straight into Siri, even if I have Ok Google or something else installed. Don’t know about Android but probably similar dynamics.

why open-source AI will be the only viable biz model long term

That’d be so funny in about two years max.

True in the same way that 'the cost of bare subsistence is the theoretical true market price of labor under capitalism' is true.

> 'the cost of bare subsistence is the theoretical true market price of labor under capitalism'

What assumptions do you need to make for that to be true?

* People like to eat.

* Capitalists don't like to give people money.

* People will not work for free.

Just about covers it.

I don’t get it. In capitalism labor is a commodity like any other: it’s price is the market clearing price where supply meets demand. You need at least some assumption that says “labor supply will expand infinitely as long as it’s possible to survive on a salary”. That assumption seems incorrect to me.

Does your model explain the need for a minimum wage?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com