How is this any different than the browser wars? We use to have a diverse market full of choices, and now we have Chromium (almost all market share) and Firefox/Safari on the edges.
The car companies need to stay in their lanes on this one. You’re risking selling a >$40k piece of hardware that requires professional service every six months in order to sell me $240/yr in software subscriptions.
In a proper capitalist society the government defines the rules of the market, aligned with the interests of several parties, and then companies compete within that well regulated and fair environment. The only incentive the government should have is to grow the entire market, so that they can collect more tax. There might be minor exceptions to protect key industries like food production or defense, but these should be a small as possible to ensure healthy competition.
It’s something entirely different when the government starts taking a stake in individual companies instead of the market as a whole. This can easily bias the government to pick OpenAI for certain contracts, or enact laws that benefit OpenAI more than its competitors. It reduces competition which hurts the overall economy, and it is an obvious vector for corruption which hurts the efficiency of the government.
It’s great if we can leverage AI to design the next great government system. A 5% stake feels more like a bribe to help push through some of these datacenter projects and enact friendly laws.
This is the most uncharitable outlook on the increase of PRs. It may be true for some contributors, but any company reviewing their GitHub will see that the code is largely spam.
I think most AI generated code is people that want to help the project, but maybe aren’t familiar with the standards and norms.
It’s always fantastic to read a success story of migrating to Linux gaming from Windows. As Windows gets worse and worse there will be more people joining us.
Even without buying you can send Linux gaming signals by playing on Linux and participating in the hardware survey.
The reason why some Capital Interests want to blacklist DeepSeek in the US is so that you are forced to buy Claude/GPT/Gemini, which will feed revenue into an industry that requires revenue (or it’s a big problem).
The reason why some Capital Interests don’t want to ban DeepSeek is so companies that utilize AI have more options, and running your own DeepSeek cluster acts as an independent cost comparison for enterprise inference contracts.
The raising AI valuation is giving more weight to those that want to blacklist DeepSeek. The AI Safety narrative is strong. I see a path where any institution with enough compute might be watched in a similar was chem labs are observed by the DEA.
Nvidia will sell you an entire server rack ready for inference. Or maybe you can roll out your own Blackwell based system.
We’re approaching a world where running a primer frontier model is possible on a workstation, probably will have something under $30k that looks like a desktop for Nvidia’s next generation. It sounds expensive, until you look at your Anthropic bill.
It’s similar unit economics as could computing for the open models. You can save a ton on the expenses by buying the hardware, but it requires a lot of in-house expertise, and you get the most value if you keep the system operating around the clock. The big kink is open models are usually 2 quarters behind frontier, and your competitors are probably trying to get access to mythos.
It’s a big number. I wonder what steps we will see to raise revenue leading up to an IPO, and specifically if they’ll cut off the OpenAI subscription that is powering my Open claw install. They have been quite friendly with using the oauth tokens in various harnesses.