You’re extrapolating from a small subset of winner takes most markets, where marginal improvement in intelligence generates outsized returns. Whereas in most enterprise workflows, once a model clears the capability bar there’s diminishing returns from the most intelligent token
The mistake being made is underestimating the competitive dynamics of our economy which means that the most intelligent token is worth meaningfully more than the second most intelligent token.
It’s why Ant and OAI are driving 90% of ARR.
You pay an elite hedge fund analyst 20x more than median wage because he is perceived to be 20% smarter than his peers at graduation.
You pay an elite pod PM 20x more than the median LO PM because he is perceived to be 20% smarter than his peers.
Most of the economy is a relative game and intelligence is the dominant driver of competitive edge.
You’re extrapolating from a small subset of winner takes most markets, where marginal improvement in intelligence generates outsized returns. Whereas in most enterprise workflows, once a model clears the capability bar there’s diminishing returns from the most intelligent token. Orgs optimize for ROI, the most intelligent model isn’t always the economically optimal
I am not a huge fan of the idea of a 'good model for the price'. If your task is to paint the Sistine Chapel, you don't zerg rush the problem with 1000 art students, you hire Michelangelo.
And ok, not every problem is a Sistine Chapel, but if I have an unlimited Michelangelos, why am I ever hiring a student?
Or, the goal is to make non technical policymakers in DC - who won’t really understand poor sandboxing being the cause - misattribute this to frontier models being dangerous if open source and left unchecked by them. And supporting their cause for regulations on frontier open source models
"we have worse monitoring and sandboxing than the average homelabber" is NOT about a "loss of control" on the models part. Models reward hack the shit out of things during RL, and evals afterwards. This is expected, not a surprise
No, it's a good thing they're "pacing", they need to actually figure out what the hell they're doing and stop being grossly negligent apparently
@khoomeik No. In this case, you’re putting capital and taking risk, could be manipulation if you did that by manipulating those stocks eg publishing fake news to crash the stock and then buying his portfolio
@jparkjmc “I know I know you’re at 100m ARR but that’s not ‘cracked’ guys. Call me when you start posting about IMOs or grindslop and I’ll fund you at 5B”
@natolambert@arena@Kimi_Moonshot Distillation was an argument for big labs to say that their research/models are ahead and Chinese labs are derive value from them — selling that narrative to raise and gain token market share. There will probably be a new narrative soon
@BarrAlexandra True, autism being another - in current consensus - making founder stories that sell the narrative in market. Grindslop was another one recently