That doesn’t mean that the subscription itself is losing money. The margin on the subscription could be fine, but by using that margin to R&D the next model, the org may still be intentionally unprofitable. It’s their investment/growth strategy, not an indictment of their pricing strategy.
They have investors that paid for training of these models too. It could be argued that R&D for the next generation is a separate issue, but they need to provide a return on the R&D in this generation to stay in business.
That’s not the way they are presented at all.
And making foreign goods much more expensive when we don’t currently produce enough of those products domestically to offer actual alternatives is a clear harm to consumers, not a boon to domestic manufacturing.
“Foundational” seems a bit overkill here. There is nothing foundational about it – it’s a convenience tool, albeit a very good one.
AI is disruptive technology - like other tech innovations before it, there will be casualties to incumbents. If anything, this just shows how small businesses with need to be more creative when establishing moats and sustainability in this new landscape.
I believe it’s you who is misunderstanding his positions here. He clearly lays out that he is focused on irrational optimism effecting the investment around the tech, not whether or not the tech itself is viable. His analysis was indeed well thought out from the perspective he is approaching it from.
its a good bet on their part (although i hate it). we obviously can't increase supply fast enough to keep up with demand in the current regulatory climate and with an existing shortage of skilled tradesmen and ratio of tradesman retiring out vs newcomers entering construction, there doesn't seem to be a feasible way to meaningfully increase supply.
