20 Comments
User's avatar
Jen Russell's avatar

We have the same question re: whether OpenAI was chasing the money because they needed it, or because nobody understands what they're doing well enough to know what it should cost and therefore OpenAI capitalized on that ignorance? My bet is on the latter because that's how tech VCs work. What an interesting development! I'm not sure it's great that we've been beaten in this race because unconstrained AI is bad for everyone. It's just a matter of time before we have a "lab leak" and given our current administration, we won't hear about it until we're scrambling to survive whatever form that takes. Hammers up! 😬

Expand full comment
Brian Merchant's avatar

Probably a bit of both, but agree this isn’t necessarily “good”—but interesting for sure. Hammers up indeed!

Expand full comment
Swag Valance's avatar

Whenever there's top-down innovation, never trust the bloated moat-defending incumbents who prioritize scale before solution. This is true for anything involving tech innovation, not just AI.

Expand full comment
Brian Merchant's avatar

Yep, a thousand times this

Expand full comment
Peter Jones's avatar

So.. are we all closer to obsolescence or what? 🤔

Expand full comment
Sunil Malhotra's avatar

HA

Expand full comment
Tom Parish's avatar

Excellent assessment. I had been considering many of the same points. You’re not alone.

Expand full comment
Brian Merchant's avatar

Cheers Tom

Expand full comment
Seamus McGowan's avatar

"Great Undermining of the American AI industry’s foundational assumptions. Yes, in all bold." Experts in the field, like Gary Marcus, have been warning about this for a year or more. LLM's have been overhyped, and the American AI industry has been irrational in its promises.

Expand full comment
Brian Merchant's avatar

Yup

Expand full comment
Peter Jones's avatar

Why did America get a fraud for president?

I've answered my own question.

Expand full comment
Nicholas Weir-Williams's avatar

What's the point of Musk buying the Government if he can't get this banned. The money has to be on that, surely

Expand full comment
Sunil Malhotra's avatar

Hahahaha!

Expand full comment
Philip Teale's avatar

Does that mean that AI will be more feasible to run from an environmental standpoint?

Expand full comment
Cato Gilmour's avatar

The bubbles are increasingly larger, yet popping sooner, like soap bubbles. Maybe it’s nature’s laws, even here. Personally, I’m done since long with inane tech bros and their hedge fund managers meddling in anything resembling artistic output. That’s why we have “content” … They just scream zero substance …

Expand full comment
Dodo B Bird's avatar

I think companies are way too big...when you can "lose" $568 Billion in one day. Not to mention the insane climate change pollution extinction causing power usage of both AI and Cryptocoins... ((which should never have been allowed as "legal tendet" in the future place.

Dodobbird.pixels.com

(My art display website.)

Expand full comment
Sunil Malhotra's avatar

Who is John Galt?

Expand full comment
Bruce Cohen's avatar

And has he stocked enough toilet paper in the Gulch?

Expand full comment
Christopher's avatar

5.5 million vs. 100 million is not 1/50th of the cost. It’s 1/18th of the cost. Still huge, but saying it’s 1/50th will cause some people to think much else of what is said in the article is exaggerated. Just sayin’.

Expand full comment
Brian Merchant's avatar

Yeah, that figure's not derived from those particular value amounts, but it is confusingly worded — I'll clarify, thanks. More info on cost here: https://abdullahafzal-11779.medium.com/how-deepseek-r1-was-trained-a-cost-efficient-revolution-in-ai-951900811d6a

Expand full comment