Do investors still not care about revenue and profits at a $300 billion valuation? Seems like the bigger problem for them is that they are losing money on the vast majority of those WAUs with no obvious route to profitability because most them will simply stop using it if forced to pay for it.
Its a gigantic bet on user stickiness in AI, and the monetizable value of AI users who don't pay for subscriptions. Aka low-end consumers vs high-end consumers.
Nvidia and AMD were low-end vs high-end. In the end Nvidia won a total victory by ditching low margin distractions like building GPUs for consoles, and focused solely on higher end PC GPUs that could dually act as accessible research chips.
No its not, its a bet on AI replacing workers. Almost all the value isn't going to be from users paying $20 or even $200 per month, but companies paying millions to billions of dollars for the api.
Yep. This example basically convinced me that they were unable to figure out anything actually useful to do with the model's new capabilities. Which makes me wonder how capable the new model in fact is.
Yah, pretty sure it is the same feature that's been in Bing Chat for 2 months now. Which feels really like there's only one pass of feature extraction from the image, preventing any detailed analysis beyond a course "what do you see". (Follow-up questions of things it likely didn't parse are highly hallucinated).
This is why they can't extract the seat post information directly from the bike when the user asks. There's no "going back and looking at the image".
Edit: nope, it's a better image analyzer than Bing
What exactly does he get from people linking to a video of him being crude. He's real estate CEO not a social media influencer. He might get a thrill out of being a public asshole, but it's not like he somehow profiting off his infamy.
“No such thing as bad press.” has been a thing for a while now.
PR teams peddle memes that play up character; “that persons a maverick and rebel” or “taken out of context” without ever providing the context, or retconning the clearly defined context the original comment was in response to.
It’s a form of obscurantism; use money to flood airwaves with spin, exhaust people with it so they move on; it’s intentional manipulation of innate biological systems; we get tired of the same old forms of information: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mom-voice-kid-brain-teen...
That’s not just a teen biology thing, it’s just adults get conditioned to grit and bear their daily grind or reality will implode. Anecdotally I know more people tired of their repetitive office job than in love with it.
We’re stateful beings and while media does not have perfect mind control of an individual, media is good at manipulating state of the aggregate such we just start telling each other shut up when we’ve had our fill.
More importantly, the sooner we can stop carbon emissions the less severe warming and ecosystem harm we'll experience. Carbon capture may help a bit if we are able to massively scale it up, but there really is not substitute for ending emissions.
It's weird seeing comments like this that argue simultaneously:
1) LLMs aren't stochastic parrots anymore!
2) You can't prove humans aren't stochastic parrots!
It pretty clear the whole point is minimize the difference between us and AI, but it does feel like you are undermining you argument by trying to work it from both sides. It reminds me some accused of crime who say both "I didn't do it!" and "If did it, it wasn't wrong!".
Humans aren't stochastic parrots. You can't "prove" this because it's not mathematical fact, but there is plenty evidence from study how to brain works to show this. Hell, it's even readily apparent from introspection if you'd bother to check. LLMs on the hand basically are stochastic parrots because they just autoregressive token predictors. They might become less so due to architectural changes made by the companies working on them, but it isn't going to just creep up on us like some goddamn emergence boogeyman.
Not really an open market when one company has as large a share of sales as steam. Valve may have a different ethos from Apple, but both agree on principle of extracting monopoly rents.
> but both agree on principle of extracting monopoly rents.
Steam’s competitors like GoG also take 30% so maybe it’s a reasonable price for the service they provide? Only companies like MSFT or Epic can charge less since their stores are heavily subsidized.
Of course as long as games remain available on multiple storefronts it will remain a winner takes all market and Steam does have a significant moat (though not in any way comparable to Apple) due to it’s social features.
At the end the existence of Steam/(other centralized storefronts) seems to benefit both consumers and developers compared to any alternative option (less risk for consumers = higher long term revenues or developers)
