> The implication is stark: models won’t be moats. Infrastructure will.
I think the jury's still out on this one.
Infrastructure size has always been a type of moat, models may become moats, and apps (or how the models are used) may become moats.
I think the jury's still out on this one.
Infrastructure size has always been a type of moat, models may become moats, and apps (or how the models are used) may become moats.
No, the infra itself isn't the moat. Being in an economic position that allows you to expend the resources necessary to run training is one, though. And the cost & speed advantages you realize from utilizing scale (and economies thereof) locally instead of renting means you'll have infra as a signifier of that economic advantage.
And at that point, the additional inference infra is cost-efficient enough that you might as well just have it too, because it's both profit and a better barrier than obfuscation or licensing.
Looking for moats makes sense in a commercial world. I thought the point of the article was that this time its different. You don't need a moat to prevent competitors moving into your market. Nation states are building their own castles, regardless of cost or business case.
Business tasked with winning the race will make heaps of money, and everyday people and companies won't be choosing whether or not AI is worth it, we'll be paying with our taxes regardless.
I don;t think the Manhattan Project was business as usual, and I suspect this will be similar.