> OpenAI can't build a moat because OpenAI isn't a new vertical, or even a complete product.
> Right now the magical demo is being paraded around, exploiting the same "worse is better" that toppled previous ivory towers of computing. It's helpful while the real product development happens elsewhere, since it keeps investors hyped about something.
> The new verticals seem smaller than all of AI/ML. One company dominating ML is about as likely as a single source owning the living room or the smartphones or the web. That's a platitude for companies to woo their shareholders and for regulators to point at while doing their job. ML dominating the living room or smartphones or the web or education or professional work is equally unrealistic.
ML dominating education seems pretty realistic to me. E.g. this series of prompts for example:
> "Please design a syllabus for a course in Computer Architecture and Assembly language, to be taught at the undergraduate level, over a period of six weeks, from the perspective of an professor teaching the material to beginning students."
> "Please redesign the course as an advanced undergraduate six-month Computer Architecture and Assembly program with a focus on the RISC-V ecosystem throughout, from the perspective of a professional software engineer working in the industry."
> "Under the category of Module 1, please expand on "Introduction to RISC-V ISA and its design principles" and prepare an outline for a one-hour talk on this material"
You can do this with any course, any material, any level of depth - although as you go down into the details, hallucinations do become more frequent so blind faith is unwise, but it's still pretty clear this has incredible educational potential.
Fortunately, what I said was that a single company becomes the sole source for the ML in education; not the same thing and thus I have no conflict with your statement.
> OpenAI can't build a moat because OpenAI isn't a new vertical, or even a complete product.
> Right now the magical demo is being paraded around, exploiting the same "worse is better" that toppled previous ivory towers of computing. It's helpful while the real product development happens elsewhere, since it keeps investors hyped about something.
> The new verticals seem smaller than all of AI/ML. One company dominating ML is about as likely as a single source owning the living room or the smartphones or the web. That's a platitude for companies to woo their shareholders and for regulators to point at while doing their job. ML dominating the living room or smartphones or the web or education or professional work is equally unrealistic.