Out of the gate you need $27.5m in cash flow with $2.2m in profit. I doubt there are many single practice dentists doing that kind of volume.
You can’t just IPO because you want out of the business. There’s lots of reporting and regulatory requirements to ensure you aren’t screwing investors.
In the past farmers needed COOPs in order to make their products/the local community's economy viable. Today we need something like COIVs (community owned investment vehicles). Kiva for the rest of us I guess.
I'm trying to be generous here... but prisoner's dilemma says the people in a community are probably better to park their money outside of the community in order to protect (and grow) their retirement investments.
Yes, it would be better for the community if people chose to invest locally instead of the SnP 500, but running out of money in retirement is a very real fear and the SnP500 is much better/safer for most people than COIVs.
> which can often require its own power - a conclusion I don't want to come to
Unfortunately we’re quick to forget that all of those words were put on paper after a time of violence, and ultimately they are a social contract between the many masses and the few “in power” that we agree to adhere to rules instead of committing violence to force behavior.
But ultimately there is only one logical conclusion to the game when parties stop playing by the rules and that’s violence, whether we want it or not. What i think you’ll find most often is the men who commit the most “crimes” against the social contract are the biggest cowards who have never faced violence or consequences and think they never will.
> And conversely, it may say something about their internal forecasts that they're not making the bet.
It says they are no longer worried about being punished for monopolistic behavior and have bet a “ballroom donation” will exempt them from another round of punishment.
I feel like folks around here have already forgotten about the last time the memory suppliers quietly agreed to keep raising prices and stop competing with each other.
You needed to fill it constantly in the “old times” when memory was ubiquitous and cheap to justify the finance payments on the debt you incurred to build it.
When you’re Apple and can build it with cash, and ram is currently so insane it saves you a decade of memory price gouging in a single year, the math changes quickly.
Having lost my sense of taste during a bout of covid I would say he’s absolutely the anomaly - or he only partially lost it. A complete loss of smell and taste is impossible to ignore. Imagine standing in the direct path of a bonfire and not noticing at all until your lungs start to hurt. You can’t not notice it.
I think people are different (also he only lost his sense of smell, not taste). It’s all about perspective. If you didn’t know that a lack of smell affects flavor you might not notice. It probably also helps that he is Asian and Asian food is significantly more flavorful.
When I had covid I noticed a difference in how food tasted but it was kinda irrelevant. Food still tasted very good. It might be genetic or something as well. For instance, I can have a double shot of expresso and go to sleep 30 minutes later.
Google “quality”? We’re talking about the same company that has killed off dozens of useful apps? The company that’s made 6 different chat apps? The one who will kill user accounts with no recourse or person to call?
GCP literally had to spend the last 5 years trying to convince enterprises everywhere that they were nothing like Google proper. I’m not sure the last time you left Silicon Valley, but Google’s name across the test of the US was synonymous with flaky commercial products that might not exist a year from now.
#1 may well put #2 out of a living but that isn't the same as stealing and doesn't (at least in and of itself) make it unsustainable. The fact that models were trained on scraped content isn't a matter of technical necessity but rather the path of least resistance (lowest cost in this case). Synthetic data is increasingly used for reasons of quantity, quality, and various technical considerations.
All of the major players in AI currently, literally stole to build their models. There isn’t one out there that hasn’t. So yes, it is the same as stealing because they were LITERALLY, in the literal sense, stealing.
Well, pirated. Piracy and stealing aren't the same thing.
Regardless, I acknowledged the general issue. However I pointed out that doing so was not a technical necessity. If you base your worldview or actions around X implying Y but then it turns out that actually Y was merely a matter of convenience you're probably going to arrive at a wrong conclusion.
There's also the issue where you're emphatically calling it stealing without providing a clear criteria. The legal system as a whole has yet to conclusively resolve the various piracy accusations. The legality of consuming publicly available content remains quite controversial.
It absolutely is a technical necessity. You could build a model from scratch today without doing the same thing. And every model attempting to train on AI generated output degrades into nonsense almost immediately.
There’s a reason Reddit is making millions of dollars letting these companies mine their human generated content. You think OpenAI or anyone else would pay for that if they could just cyclically train on AI generated content???
I said nothing about that. Good synthetic data does not (typically) involve ML algorithms. Although that might be changing.
I'll politely suggest that you go read the literature before engaging further.
Reddit, Twitter, and similar are valuable because the data covers current events. Their content makes up a reasonably comprehensive timeline of the world at large. You don't need that to train a barebones functional model but it's certainly useful in order to train a knowledgeable one. Regardless, if they're charging for access it clearly isn't piracy so it doesn't seem like your original objection would hold any water in that case.
> I'll politely suggest that you go read the literature before engaging further.
Which commercial AI vendor has not stolen any content when creating their models? I’ll wait.
Which commercial AI vendor has created their models exclusively training on datasets created and created by other AI?
> Regardless, if they're charging for access it clearly isn't piracy so it doesn't seem like your original objection would hold any water in that case.
Given that they were previously violating the site’s terms of service when scraping the content: yes, they were absolutely stealing.
What advantage? Has there ever been any indication they’re leading in any segment? Sure Elon has thrown a bunch of money at hardware, but to what end?
And frankly as bad as Altman is from a: if AI is really going to disrupt humanity do I want this guy in charge? Elon is 10x worse. So why would the best and the brightest ever work for him?
yes, but it's only advantage if one is compute-strained and the other isn't. if they both have lots then there's no advantage. if one doesn't fully utilise their compute then it's not an advantage either
Well, other than your ability to turn that into cash by renting it out for the highest price to someone who needs it, you can promise prospective employees that are supposed to use that infra to train models that they won’t be compute starved.
You can kick off more model training runs and experiments than your competitors.
You can kick off a $1-2t IPO claiming you are going to capture a large portion of the largest TAM the world has ever seen.
They have neither the most resources nor the best models. They are mediocre at everything except the CSAM generation market, they've got that one cornered
Could have (past tense). They now have rented the capacity out, presumably with a multi-year contract.
A rental deal, even at a premium price, actually makes great sense for Anthropic. Rather than building themselves, they are de-risked by renting instead, and they don't own the depreciating asset. They've also compute-starved X.ai as a potential competitor as a marginal added bonus.
> The current compromise is to collect it once at a federal level and split the proceeds with the states. This has problems, but it's better than having every state track individual mileage on public roads (ew).
“Has problems” is an interesting way to gloss over we’ve got an administration that has openly declared war on any state he didn’t win and will no doubt withhold funds from the states he doesn't like, the same ones that will be providing the vast majority of the revenue in question.
I literally cannot think of a worse way to enforce this than letting the federal government collect the tax and then distribute it to the states as they see fit.
> I literally cannot think of a worse way to enforce this than letting the federal government collect the tax and then distribute it to the states as they see fit.
I mean, this is more or less how it already works with all the federal department funding. The same administration wants to abolish the Department of Education which is guilty of the same thing. So no side is really being consistent in this particular area.
Stop with the “both sides are the same” nonsense. Red states got some of the largest funding in Biden’s stimulus package despite not voting for him.
The democrats have consistently tried to pass bills and funding for the needy regardless of political affiliation or state of residence. Trump is literally the only one trying to use the federal government to punish states that didn’t vote for him and his Republican colleagues have been happy to oblige.
> I mean, this is more or less how it already works with all the federal department funding
Which is why it's bad to add to that.
> The same administration wants to abolish the Department of Education which is guilty of the same thing. So no side is really being consistent in this particular area.
I'm not aware of a time where DoE was used as a political cudgel against specific states, care to elaborate here?
That DoE can allogate disproportionately from wealthier states to poorer states based on need isn't the issue. The issue is when it's based on spite.
Obviously nobody has weaponized these agencies like Trump. But it's worth pointing out that the way DoE funds have been doled out over the years have been deferential and usually follow each administrations' pet projects.
It's a fair criticism to have over a national EV road tax as well, but it's not that unusual a precedent.
You’re assuming they care what happens to their children when they’re gone. We’re talking about sociopaths. Sure they care more about their children than the random plebe walking down the street, but they definitely don’t care more about their children than their own personal desires. That’s empathy, and empathy is for the weak.
You can’t just IPO because you want out of the business. There’s lots of reporting and regulatory requirements to ensure you aren’t screwing investors.
reply