Yes?

For example, you could least feel that the world is large enough to have people with other needs, drives and ownership levels of their work.

You could also consider that this is not an even trade; artists had all their works ingested and didn’t get a commensurate stake in openAI.

You can consider that you had a choice to share when you contributed to open source. Then imagine how a counter culture artist, who despises corporate culture, must feel to have their work consumed by another rapacious tech entity.

Or you can be the filmmaker whose clients are now showing up with entire ad clips, and then decide they would rather not spend the money on CGI to complete the video - essentially demolishing work overnight.

This isn’t to say that there are not artists who are excited by this, or artist who are happy to have their art ingested. Just that the way you phrased your question evoked this answer.

At this stage there is just protest and reaction.

It looks like a “People respond to incentives (prices)” situation.

If something is cheaper than alternatives, spending patterns change. People subsidize corn or power and so consumers alter behavior to take advantage of those prices.

> afaik most estimate north of 80% profit margins

This seems to be the lynchpin of your argument.

It makes me wonder if I have been living under a rock, because I have never heard of frontier labs making money. AFAIK all AI firms are simply burning money to acquire customers at this stage. Is this wrong?

>It makes me wonder if I have been living under a rock, because I have never heard of frontier labs making money.

You're confusing the profit from the marginal token and overall profit (basically gross margin and operating margin). The comment you're replying to is calculating that AI labs are probably making a substantial profit per paid token. It's just that so far that profit has not been able to overcome the ongoing R&D and capex costs.

> not been able to overcome the ongoing R&D and capex costs.

And the cost of not-quite-paid tokens.

Which may or may not exist, hence this thread.

People tend to believe OpenAI and Anthropic can make money any time, the only thing they need to do is to stop training newer/better models. Source? Sam & Dario, of course (trust us, bro). It may (if they sell access at API price) or may not be true, but the scenario where training is stopped is simply unrealistic at this point.

The human speed legal system would become collateral damage.

Hey, the more we think about our information economy/environment as a commons, the better.

I fully expect our future to involve PhD factories where doctorates label AI output for the most competitive rates possible.

The majority of us will have to contend with an information environment that is polluted and overrun.

I’ll argue with that the internet pre social media was the “healthiest” in terms of our digital commons.

> The details change, but the fundamental playbook - using state violence to coerce outcomes favorable to said state - is far from new. Hell,

There is a massive difference in degree and kind here. Mixing them up at this level is spherical cow territory.

What is this comment? Yes, society curtails behaviors?

We wear helmets and seatbelts?

Insurance is entirely about paying a small amount so that the costs of being on the wrong side of bad luck doesn’t pauper your citizenry. A single payer system wildly reduces the amount that has to be paid, while increasing service outcomes since now you can negotiate with drug companies.

I would happily pay for that kind of system as well, because I am happy to ensure that the rest of the nation is better off.

Close! Insurance is a transaction I consent to engaging in, but a single payer system is not that.

But… wait… what? Based on you what you say… why do you put money into an insurance system? It sounds like you want to make the most rational choice, but you are working off of a model of insurance that doesn’t make sense.

The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage is one that distributes costs across the largest pool of individuals. Which is a single payer system.

I put money into an insurance system to diffuse risk away from myself.

> The maximally effective version, with the least cost, and greatest coverage

It would be even more effective to just enslave a bunch of people and force them to pay for my healthcare, but I don’t advocate for that because it’s immoral and unfair.

If your government requires its people to be dead, it is by nature a foul and evil thing.

thats one wrong way to interpret it, yes. The right way is a government choosing criteria to determine how much it should interfere in your personal choices and in that context net cost to the government is a reasonable metric to consider, although not the only metric

Tech work underinvests in customer support and safety.

If they spent what they had to, they would crater their revenues, because support does not scale like code does.