← Back to context

Comment by segmondy

21 hours ago

I think the difference is that AI as an edge. That edge will turn into more money, better quality of life, etc. Of course, with serious skills, you might be able to use use a not so smart model to keep up with folks with smart models. People are lazy tho, and will prefer for AI to do all the work if it means they do none.

Can't be an edge if everyone has access to it.

The edge is somewhere else.

  • What is "somewhere else" for you? (Besides distribution and money)

    • I don’t know. But if you assume that the AI companies have an enterprise subscription product available to any given market sector then given their desperate need for money they will sell it to anyone and everyone. So it becomes a widely used standard feature. Having access to it doesn’t give you an edge; it puts you on the same surface as everyone else.

      It’s like being an algorithmic betting exchange gambler; being the first with access to some new stream of information may give you a very temporary advantage but once everyone has access to it, the market prices it in.

      If you want an advantage you have to seek it out elsewhere.

      It might be in the harness or tooling, but if your cloud LLM can write it quickly for you, it’s the same for your competitors; their cloud LLM can write it for them.

      The idea that using a cloud LLM is an edge — an advantage — doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny.

      The only edges left will be human.

  • ... and everyone won't have access to it, look at Fable. How many people in the world can afford Fable or are using it?