Elon is garbage. HAS to be in the spotlight regardless of topics and NEEDS to be worshipped by millions.
LLM and AI in general have the potential to do massive good for society, including finding cures for cancer. Imagine telling a sick kid you have to wait because a man baby is crying for attention.
Famous Stanford CS professor:
More like AI God.
The thing that got me so mad about Elon’s call to slow OpenAI down is that he himself rolled out half-baked Autopilot that has literally killed people. Why didn’t he put a moratorium on Tesla? Rules for ya but not for me.
At least GPT-4 hasn’t killed anyone yet. The worst it did was just giving creepy answers to prompts written by people with an agenda.
Pichai noted that Bard is running on a “lightweight and efficient version of LaMDA,” an AI language model that focuses on delivering dialog. “In some ways I feel like we took a souped-up Civic and put it in a race with more powerful cars,” said Pichai. PaLM, by comparison, is a more recent language model; it’s larger in scale and Google claims it is more capable when dealing with tasks like common-sense reasoning and coding problems.
Then why even rushed it out? Show me the goods or STFU.
Why Europe sucks at tech.
An interesting thought on AI’s impact on seat-based vs consumption-based pricing:
Consumption Pricing. This one is interesting to me (and a little more abstract than the above discussion on margins). If we believe that AI will ultimately allow us to do “more with less,” we may see headcount growth slow for traditional roles. What do I mean by this? Companies could end up hiring less SDRs but booking more sales demos. Or hire less engineers but write more code with tools like GitHub Copilot. Or hire less data engineers but write more SQL queries. The list goes on. The pattern here: less people but more usage / output. For businesses tied to seat based models this may pose a challenge! Here’s the cycle - Customers start consuming more and more of your product. As we talked about above, the more use of AI features, the more costs from players like OpenAI flow through your COGS. However, as seats aren’t growing as quickly (these AI features allow users to do more with less), you end up with a scenario where COGS are growing faster than revenue. I don’t really have a solution here, other than to say companies that charge on consumption don’t have this problem (or at least this problem to the same extent). As more of the product is used (ie as more SQL queries executed), your revenue goes up (regardless of # of seats).
Seat-based pricing models proved to be more resilient in the cost-optimization cycle we just had. There are no obvious way to optimize costs if the SaaS subscription is seat-based, short of reducing seats. So maybe in the AI age consumption-based model could adopt better instead?
Seat-based pricing is less elastic than consumption-based pricing on both ends of the consumption spectrum.
In a cost-cutting env, you are correct that this inelasticity probably helps until cost cutting measures reach headcount reduction. When that happens, the license seats are cut at the same time as headcount so it hurts. You have 5 server admins for whatever subscription products that supports your production instance. You cut two of those admins. Those 2 license seats are no longer needed. The amount of load you run on those subscription does immediately go down.
In a growth env, consumption increases faster than seats so again there’s the same pattern but in reverse.
Basically, seat-based pricing is a digital step-function that tries to bring more predictability to the analog slope of consumption-pricing. Within step-function ranges, seat-based pricing provides for predictability. Outside those ranges, there are cliffs and walls.
typically cost of API license is different from seats so most probably in this scenario, smart companies will start off the bat with different pricing for api calls from AI agents.
ChatGPT is literally like early iPhones now. People can’t buy and have to wait in line. Insane demand. And it’s software, not hardware.
The software still has to run on hardware…
OMG!!! From the man who famously predicted the internet is not going to boost the economy.
Everybody loads up on NVDA now!!!
Don’t you usually use Krugman as justification for liberal economic policies?
Krugman is an economist, not a technologist. I respect his work on macro economics, but not on cutting edge tech.
If you look at GDP post 1990 when the net got into full swing you could argue it didn’t really boost the economy. Sub-20tieth century growth rates for most of the time since.
Paul Krugman is a liberal hack. Economists with a political agenda are just politicians. When you base all your theories on trying to justify a political viewpoint you have no credibility. It clouds all his thinking on any subject.
Like the rants of Rush Limbaugh or the films of Michael Moore, Krugman’s shrill polemic may hearten the faithful, but it will do little to persuade the unconvinced or to advance the national discussion of the important issues it addresses."[7]
