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.
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.
I’d disagree. I think there is still so much value it can offer if you really open your mind. For instance, I’ve met very few “programmers” that I’d consider even moderately competent at front-end, so the ability of a programmer to build and iterate a clean and responsive UI is just one example of a huge win for AI tools.
This splitting of hairs between the legal entities and the work of their paid teams/employees isn’t adding strength to your argument. Companies are run by people and those people get to make decisions on the allocation of resources. If they decided to put substantial resources into OSS, the company does get to claim credit there.
> there are plenty of open source communities that exist without the direct funding of work.
Great! Maybe the Ruby community can strive for this in the future but it does not reflect the OPs point that these companies and their outsized contributions via time and money are still core to the existing community we have today.
I don’t see any way to actually achieve this at scale let alone any reason to add an opening for more pointless lawsuits. Let’s say they’re liable and you choose to act on incorrect information recieved for free. Do you really try to take them to court and on what grounds?