> It's about whether they can continually create reasonable substitutes for orders of magnitude less investment
That just means that the edge you’re able to retain if you invest $1B is nonexistent. It also means there’s a huge disincentive to invest $1B if your reward instantly evaporates. That would normally be fine if the competitor is otherwise able to get to that new level without the $1B. But if it relies on your $1B to then be able to put in $100M in the first place to replicate your investment, it essentially means the market for improvements disappears OR there’s legislation written to ensure competitors aren’t allowed to do that.
This is a tragedy of the commons and we already have historical example for how humans tried to deal with it and all the problems that come with it. The cost of producing a book requires substantial capital but the cost of copying it requires a lot less. Copyright law, however flawed and imperfect, tries to protect the incentive to create in the face of that.
> That just means that the edge you’re able to retain if you invest $1B is nonexistent.
Jeez. Must be really tough to have some comparatively small group of people financially destroy your industry with your own mechanically-harvested professional output while dubiously claiming to be be better than you when in reality it’s just a lot cheaper. Must be tough.
Maybe they should take some time to self-reflect and make some art and writing about it using the products they make that mechanically harvest the work of millions of people, and have already screwed up the commercial art and writing marketplaces pretty throughly. Maybe tell DeepSeek it’s their therapist and get some emotional support and guidance.
This. There is something doubly evil about OpenAI harvesting all of that work for its own economic benefit, while also destroying the opportunity for those it stole from to continue to ply their craft.
And then all of their stans taking on a persecution complex because people that actually made all of the “data” don’t uncritically accept their work as equivalent adds insult to injury.
>it essentially means the market for improvements disappears OR there’s legislation...
This is possibly true, though with billions already invested I'm not sure that OpenAI would just...stop absent legislation. And, there may be technical or other solutions beyond legislation. [0]
But, really, your comment here considers what might come next. OTOH, I was replying to your prior comment that seemed to imply that DeepSeek's achievement was of little consequence if they weren't improving on OpenAI's work. My reply was that simply approximating OpenAI's performance at much lower cost could still be extraordinarily consequential, if for no other reason than the challenges you subsequently outlined in this comment's parent.
[0] On that note, I'm not sure (and admittedly haven't yet researched) how DeepSeek just wholesale ingested ChatGPT's "output" to be used for its own model's training, so not sure what technical measures might be available to prevent this going forward.
That just means that the edge you’re able to retain if you invest $1B is nonexistent. It also means there’s a huge disincentive to invest $1B if your reward instantly evaporates. That would normally be fine if the competitor is otherwise able to get to that new level without the $1B. But if it relies on your $1B to then be able to put in $100M in the first place to replicate your investment, it essentially means the market for improvements disappears OR there’s legislation written to ensure competitors aren’t allowed to do that.
This is a tragedy of the commons and we already have historical example for how humans tried to deal with it and all the problems that come with it. The cost of producing a book requires substantial capital but the cost of copying it requires a lot less. Copyright law, however flawed and imperfect, tries to protect the incentive to create in the face of that.