Hacker News Reader

Comment by tintor | Hacker News Reader

The future is in private data, private models, and private APIs, which can't be distilled as easily as public APIs.

Wouldn't that depend on how much data? I assume those who own the data would rather buy the hardware and create models from this data themselves, as opposed to sending their data off to someone else, or allowing it to be pirated.

For most of those Google is much better positioned.

I disagree, the moat will be of those holding rights for valuable problem domain specific training data. Examples I can think of:

Adobe sits on a treasure trove of:

- Copyrighted multimedia

- Years of telemetry on content creation

Zeiss sits on decades of data:

- Medical imaging, and surgical footage.

- Silicon waffer inspection.

These embody a training corpus that is de facto (lawfully) out of reach of the crawler scrapper approaches of Google/Meta/OpenAI/Anthropic (even if they pirate the seas for torrents like before).

Neither Adobe or Zeiss are an AI power house but the barrier to entry has also dropped with all the movement in the field.

Excellent point, and one that’s not raised enough in these conversations.

Google owns Google Books and a myriad other data sub businesses beside the index of the entire web.

Well openai and anthropic are sitting on absolute treasure troves of private data that is their users' interaction with their models.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com