Margins will not climb to 100%. As inference gets cheaper, buyers will ask more of their agents, shifting the equilibrium over time in response to competition.
Most importantly, they see the world in terms of collective zero-sum competition between groups. To the New Right, if Indians get into the University of Texas, it means that White people must have been “replaced” at that university — or at American universities in general.
The future is multi-model. Trying to hide the choice confuses and hurts customers, who can't participate in the upside of the most exciting market competition of our times, nor master the best tool for the job.
The Frontier Lab flywheel is to get the smartest people to use the leading models. Then distill their inputs, your own model’s outputs, and resulting synthetic data and environments. And the people have to use the leading models because they’re locked in mutual competition.
I’m more and more convinced that all of AI engineering is Neijuan (内卷, meaning curl inwards). In China it describes a system that demands ever more effort and competition without improving output.
in this whole USA vs China thing OpenAI and Anthropic aren't relevant because they're positioned differently
them building better models doesn't hurt china at all
the competitor has to be
- american
- open source
- enough compute to do inference at scale
that can shift things
Um which based on my experience is like this is a a very disruptive process that doesn't tend to surface issues that you don't already know about but haven't acted on because you knew that thing was there.
This is a little bit different than actually literally I vector centrality but it's very similar and so we call this technique IGEN reviews and I've become convinced that this is more or less the right way to do performance reviews.
The original point of the China Shock 1.0 discourse was not to foreground the unfairness of Chiense competition, so much as the malfunctioning of US policy and societal institutions in the face of concentrated globalization shocks.
By the way, this is the pattern in a lot of regulation. It doesn't come from like some well-meaning person trying to keep the public safe. It comes from some entrenched, frankly, lazy interest that doesn't want to have to compete and runs to DC or runs to the local regulator and tries to use the power of government to shut their competition down. I think this is deeply unethical, but it happens all the time.
I think if you ask an AI just for a strategy lazily, you're not going to get something great. You're going to get something pretty predictable that probably the competition would expect you to do.
Always try your stupid ideas if you can do it cheaply and reversibly. Jumping off a bridge is not a reversible decision. Not talking about that. I'm talking about stuff like this where you're just like, "Here's a stupid idea." 99 times out of a 100 it'll fail. But that one time you won't have any competition cuz nobody else is stupid enough to try this idea.
It was just better than all the competition. It was faster. It was smaller. Um it was more interactive and it was also cheaper. So, it was like 10 times better at a tenth of the price of the of the competition, right?
all kinds of famous companies where the thing that destroyed them was not competition. It was not someone else came up with a better product. No, their very success became a liability because the more golden the goose, the greater the temptation to butcher.
So you get this rapid, incredible great talent, rapid innovation because of open source and just, you know, the nature of friends, and, and insane competition. Among the company, what emerges is incredible stuff. And so this is the fastest innovating country in the world today
economists have this fantasy of the world of companies in direct competition driving down price and increasing efficiency while supplying the same thing which is based on a false premise that people know what they want to begin with. Now I would argue when you don't create differentiation, everybody suffers.
I think what's going to happen is that the way competition like competition loves specialization and you see it in the market, you see it in evolution as well. So you're going to have lots of different niches and you're going to have lots of different companies who are occupying different niches
Well, it's in line with my overall philosophy. I think competition leads to progress. If you want to create an ideal process for selecting the most qualified people for certain specific tasks you have in mind, what can be better than a competition?
it seems like struggle is a part of life, either you do it earlier or you do it later. And it’s true, that’s such a good point that competition does seem to be a really powerful driver of skill development
China does much better in basic service delivery-and its local governments have also played a very obvious and important in driving growth, thanks to the competition and experimentation among local officials driven to develop their jurisdictions.
Bitcoin is not going to catch on as a charity. In order for spending it to catch on persistently at scale (i.e. not just billions of dollar-equivalents in annual global medium-of-exchange volume, but trillions), it has to solve problems for spenders and/or recipients that other solutions are not doing.
this technology, consistently underestimated, now adds more capacity to the global grid than anything ever and will soon add more power in any given year than anything ever as well.
I think the big thing to realize for indie developers right now is there's massive, massive competition in every major genre, and it's very unlikely that unless you just happen to be the world's best at a particular thing that you're going to release a game in an existing highly competitive genre and win.
I knew that our competition was not going to be startups. It was incumbents. And I also knew that incumbents generally struggle with speed because by definition they have massive scale and usually entrenched architecture.
Contrary to some people’s beliefs, companies do not in fact have sufficient incentives to mitigate all major risks, and competition is driving corner-cutting that needs to be reined in somehow.
AI competition needs to be tempered with a recognition that China isn’t going away as a player in AI, and that coexistence must also be a part of America’s strategy.
So, taking also any benchmark that is derived from competition and saying this is where we should be is also so dangerous because it might not even be applicable depending on how you define the metric.
"It’s honest in how it covers topics like navigating tricky power dynamics with CEOs, surviving 'peer panic,' dealing with competition within leadership teams, and in its overall breadth and depth."
There is a skill to asking good questions, and everyone’s curious though. Curiosity is unbounded in this world. Every person in the world is curious, but not all of them are blessed to translate that curiosity into a well-articulated question.
A simple understanding of coalitions, political competition, and limited resources will bring you rather quickly to the conclusion that intelligent liberal elites can screw up their colonies pretty badly and in ways that can persist for decades or centuries.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.