There are humans today that refer to Africa as the 'third world' even though it's a continent with countries more developed than some US states or European countries.
Significant outdated cultural knowledge seems the norm for humans too.
1,528 karma · joined May 2, 2012
Significant outdated cultural knowledge seems the norm for humans too.
Cynics logic is always a race to the moral bottom
They are both limited by production capacity at the moment because we need more "open" foundaries which needs more machines from ASML. Both are in the works, but it takes time.
As long as they sell all their inventory anyway you won't see a price drop, let alone a price war.
I'm more surprised AMD is not playing in the AI field more. Although it seems the long term strategy for Google, Microsoft and Amazon is to supply their clouds with their own ARM based hardware rather than buying from Nvidia. But AMD could enter that market with a high volume low margin approach as well.
Still, as long as TSCM and ASML can't scale up production further everybody will be waiting anyway. That's where the bottleneck is, thats whats keeping prices high.
My point was more that unless someone credible wants to spend days investigating we will never know the truth here, except for the obvious truth staring us in the face: stay away from _all_ _these_ _people.
Here's the opposite perspective by someone not themselves part of the drama:
Suggesting that this person may indeed be socially insecure but also actually being actively targeted and physically at risk. So it may be the case you just shared two gaslighting videos.
I wouldn't be surprised if anybody who bothers to make a 20 minute video showing screenshots of conversations is mentally unhinged enough to call a swat team on other people.
So i wouldn't recommend interacting with this community at all.
Reward producers: - that produces the first thing that makes an inactive customer active again - that produce something that is consumed by those who don't consume much else on the platform - that complements existing content rather than being more of the same
However it's less about producers being rewarded for their success. Especially if the content is developed in-house and the decision is driven by market research.
It's easy to be saturated within a genre. Most games take quite a while to finish. If people stop playing on your service it's not because they finished all the games there. It's because they are bored with the offering, i.e. the diversity of the offering.
2. Console gaming is small slice of the gaming market. Most money is made on mobile games.
3. Bundling/unbundling of publishers is completely normal everyday economic behavior in the media market.
4. Microsoft is buying IP and managers. To keep the designers and engineers that actually win in the competitive war that is the gaming industry they would have to pay the same amount of money to keep them as they would to just outright steal them. They did this to be polite and quick within the market, but the alternative is to just steal all the talent by offering higher pay. Would be cheaper.
5. If EU would block this, then what the _f_ were they doing when Disney bought up geek IP's like there was no tomorrow? It wouldn't be very consistent.
6. The transition to subscription gaming might be in the interest of consumers and developers. It sure was a good thing when it happened to video and music. And it did lead to multiple players. The business model of subscription all-you-can-eat-gaming itself extracts more money from consumers -and- delivers more value to those same consumers. Streaming services tend to focus on 'genre' completeness (have something for every type of viewer), whereas a business model where you rent or pay tends to favor low-risk high-budget more-of-the-same, with a low-effort low-budget offering with ads/microtransactions.
7. It's hard to imagine any professional believing Microsoft would try to use the vendor lock-in on content to sell you a subsidized console you would only use to access their subscription service. Consoles themselves are already a publishing play, i.e. taking 30% of the sales of somebody else's content. That have that same power with a popular subscription service, if you are streaming from Android TV (possible today), a Steamdeck (possible today). Their play here is to compete with the subsidized console market with a subscription business model.
1. Cloud gaming currently represents a neglectable portion of the market. Clearly it needs a very large player to even attempt to make it work.
2. Gaming as a Netflix/HBO/Disney+ style subscription is not a crazy idea. It requires at least one party to get some critical mass and prove the market actually exists, and then competition will appear who were initially more risk averse. The streaming wars of video content definitely improved the market for consumers compared to risk-free hollywood blockbusters and cheap reality TV that came before it.
3. All-you-can-eat gaming as a subscription might actually increase the diversity and quality of games. Games are currently so expensive to produce that very few risks are taken. This allows much more space for niche games that have a small loyal following.
4. The assumption that Microsoft would use XBox live as a lock-in to sell you a subsidized console seems absolutely silly. This is more about them finding an exit to just discontinue the XBox console all together. You can already play XBox live games on a Steamdeck or an Android TV.
5. The gaming world is much more volatile than people seem to understand. Activision's dominance is only sustainable if they keep making games that are more compelling and just like is the case for Ubisoft or EA who are having a really bad decade, that seems to require more than just money and banking on the past. It's a fiercely competitive industry and the actual lead actors (i.e. the hero developers) jump ship or start a new developer company every other day. So all they end up buying is IP and managers. The rest would cost just as much to keep as they would to steal.
I understand people might not like Microsoft to be the one taking the initiative here, but is the initiative itself really that bad for consumers or the developers?
Because i'm one of those people who would appreciate the change in the market. I spend more money on streaming services where i also give more things a try, than i ever would if i would be buying or renting music/tv-shows/movies. I spent more _and_ get more value.
Why is the same notion for gaming somehow worse for everyone?
That's not within anyone's terms and conditions except Wikipedia.
That's what I mean with precedent. If OpenAI would win that they would be sued in term by Bloomberg for example.
So OpenAI can claim whatever they like, there is no way they will ever pursue legal actions, unless their intent is to (intentionally) lose the court case to establish the precedent that it is okay to train on random data you scraped from the internet.
We would also get into a weird situation anyhow where it is hard/impossible to prove whether all/some/none of the information in a dataset is curated by humans. So in the worst case, we will have companies work with human curators (but secretly supplement with gray sourced materials) during their training. Just like how its hard to get 100% slave free coffee beans or cacao.
They are just not realizing they are self sabotaging in terms of opportunity costs.
If they adjust prices to purchasing power, with at least 30% profit marge, windows laptops and chromebooks would be having crisis talks right about now.
People would prefer the Apple stuff, but not at that price. Even if you can easily afford it, if you are from a protestant nation, you couldn't live with yourself spending your money so irresponsibly. The value deal isn't there, unless you are using it professionally. But for leisure? No way.
An ad would send you to another site. The point of the chat is so you don't have to go to all the shitty sites and deal with all the marketing speak.
So the options are either:
- subscription, as they do now (ala Netflix, Officd365)
- free, with ads having the profit maximalisation be the exact opposite of the main selling point (ala Google, Bing, Facebook)
- platform, free for the user, but taking a cut from vendors that would integrate (ala iOS, Android, Steam, Amazon, Salesforce)
In other words, rather than being an ad, it could offer to buy the car directly from the chat.
The later is the most profitable solution and also ensure the interests of the user and the platform align. Platforms don't care which product you buy through them, they take the same cut, and would rather make you as happy as possible so you don't go to the competitor.
Perhaps they will try to up the price on this platform compared to others. But only until AirBnB comes to compete on this platform too (and uploads their API integration)
It's a platform game.
There was a time when Google tried to index everything and afterwards came a time when everything tried to be indexed by Google. Once you are the default, they have to be there and they will have to compete with others there.
And as long as the chat protects users from losing control over their intent, that's where the users will be and that's where you will need to be offering your products to be viable. Obviously at that point the regulators come knocking..
Assuming there would only be one player. There won't be, but for now only OpenAI is actually aware of the opportunity and Microsoft doesn't even seem to understand it's a platform game now and not an ad game.
Because it would be the less profitable bussiness.
>Also, to this day, LLMs/ANNs are not capable of explaining their outcome, and you won't argue/reason with them
How would I be able to tell that your response is human and not a LLM?
I definately can argue within a chat thread. They can also provide a plausible sounding explanation.
We know due to the nature of the technology that that explanation (sounding rational, deductive) isn't the truth.
We are just not all ready to accept all the same shortcomings also apply to humans.
If you could buy the car from the chat, thats the correct bussiness model.
Ads were the correct business model for search, where the goal is to find and click on a relevant link.. but that's the exact opposite of a chat. Clicking a link means the chat failed its purpose.
> We need to travel by train from Rome to Montpellier, but it is too many stops to do at once. So we would like to stay somewhere for a day in between Rome and Montpellier. What are our options? It needs to be safe, not adding a lot of extra travel time and suitable for a workathon
It returns with four options, approximate travel times and advantages and disadvantages. It understood coworking cafes or bussiness hotels would be a requirement.
> What are all the places an SSL certificate could be cached when calling an API from a Jupiter notebook?
It mentioned some obvious things such OS/browser/network-device, but also that a particular python package exists that is doing this at the application level as well, but only in memory and that a restart of the Jupiter kernel would resolve that.
Now, I'm curious with what kind of keywords I could get meaningful output from Google for these two examples.
What i suspect is happening is that you are micro managing your chat as if it's search. Picking keywords rather than just telling it the problem you are actually trying to solve. Splitting up your problem in sub problems and then trying to find each peace of information manually and combining it yourself to form a conclusion.
- they take a cut
- they are neutral because they want repeat bussiness
- they are personalised around your requirements
- they take care of the little details
It's exactly what I'm describing here, except automated. Because at heart their work is analyst work and thats exactly what you can automate with a LLM
When people give Apple Music a cut of their song sales, or when people give Apple a cut of their iOS in game spending, it is not called advertisement.
When you pay to tell someone who doesn't want to hear it about your product, thats advertisement.
The smart play here is the platform play. Clicking on a link and leaving the chat is the opposite of the intent and purpose of the chat. It makes sense for search because going to another website is the point. For search it is the correct business model, but for chat it is not. The chat is the platform. Leaving it breaks all the advantages.
Just like you can't pay for iOS app outside of their appstore.
Just like how Uber, DoorDash, Booking.com are neutral vendors. They don't care from which restaurant you order or which hotel you book. You can filter by customer rating. They make the same either way. Same for iOS or Android apps or Apple Music or Steam.
It is in their interest to keep it fair and have the users decide which of their suppliers wins.
I don't see a difference.
They especially don't care if I'm doing all my transactions though them anyway. The only thing that decides how much I spend, and therefore they make, would be my income.
Keep in mind OpenAI wouldn't be the only game in town, just the first, so if the same query gets a better or cheaper deal somewhere else they would lose me as a customer.
I also spent a lot more time on the choice where I live than the hotel in going to stay at for a week. Weird.
And although ChatGPT currently doesn't have up to date information about hotels or the ability to book it (a simple booking.com plugin would enable that though), it is smart enough to either pick a hotel with remote working facilities or consider one with coworking spaces nearby.
But you wouldn't need any of those to compete in this market, any more than an Uber driver would need that.
All you need is to tell a chat about your API and focus on your actual product. It is a much more submissive relationship with the customer, but not a less profitable one.
I need either information, a service or a product. Or information about a service or a product.
I never need a search, a website or an app. That's never the problem I'm trying to solve.
Search, websites and apps are the tools I have to use (currently) to solve my problems. In the process I have to:
- deal with the fact that the interest of the makers of the app or website do not align with mine
- deal with privacy invasions/ads/notifications
- deal with things being phrased disingenuously
- deal with apps needing to update, website being broken/bandwidth wasted
And most importantly, unless two vendors implemented an integration together, I have to integrate their services myself!
I never want to leave the chat. I want to do all my transactions from the chat. All of them. On my terms. With my prompts.
Whoever facilitates that can take a 5-30% cut on all my online transactions.
Examples:
- book me a highly rated hotel in Berlin around 100 euro p/n most suitable for a staycation for next week Monday to Friday. Make a reservation near that hotel for the highest rated traditional German cuisine restaurant with a price per plate of 20-30 euro
- send every contact ive emailed with from my work email in the last year a Christmas card with a funny but professional pun about the invention of the steam engine. Send it to their work address.
It's the wrong bussiness model. The power of these chats is integration. To have the chat suggest a travel plan -and- book all the underlying steps. To integrate 3rd party services on the fly based on your specific requirements while rolling it up in a single transaction.
That only works if the chat is representing my interests. Not just from a user perspective, but also from a regulatory and anti-trust perspective.
ChatGPT is positioned to be a platform of apps that are integrated. Bing is positioned to be a search engine, making money on ads.
The whole point is to never leave the chat. To have it all come to you on your terms.
I want to do every transaction that I do online today from my chat. I don't care if you have a website or an app. If I can't order/subscribe from the chat your product might as well not exist.
Examples:
- I want a peperroni pizza from the highest rated place that doesn't also sell kebab that can deliver within 30 minutes.
- Send a neutral professional Christmas gift to every customer in our EMEA region that generates at least 50k revenue for us
At no point would I accept the product choices to be decided by who pays Microsoft more. Nor do I care who makes it happen. I don't want a link. I don't want to engage.
But I'm perfectly fine with a neutral chat taking 5-30% cut on the transaction.
Not realizing the game changed and playing yesterday's game in today's world.
The reason why people prefer these chats over clicking search results and finding the relevant information is that the search results themselves as well as the first page of links forces your brain to filter 99% commercial information that you don't care about. You don't want to subscribe to newsletters. You don't want notifications. You wish the site would just die rather that pollute the search results and push more to-the-point non profit sources further down.
And bringing ads in the game makes it impossible to make the platform play due to conflict of interests. You are either serving the user or the advertiser. Ads is the wrong business model for this, and OpenAI is positioned to be the winner here (against both Google and Bing) in a market larger than search and advertising.
I will definately keep paying for the answers to be in my interest and look forward to spending money directly through ChatGPT, much like I spent money on iOS, Android and Steams's platform today.
That some parts of her movement became too militant was likely not her intention.
But it did lead to multiple politicians needing permanent security including herself.
The issue is that our the lack of cheap land actually made our agricultural sector very competitive. They need high yields to be viable, so they made the investments (equipment, r&d) to have extremely high yields.
More than 80℅ ends up being exported.