This is a very interesting point. I have upvoted this post even though I disagree with it because I think the question of “Who will pay, and how much will they pay, to restrict others’ access AI?” is important.
My instinct is that this won’t happen, because there are too many AI companies for this deal to work on all of them, and some of these AI companies will have strong kinda-ideological commitments to not doing this. Also, my model of (e.g. OpenAI) is that they want to eat as much of the world’s economy as possible, and this is better done by selling (even at a lower revenue) to anyone who wants an AI SWE than selling just to Oracle.
o4 (God I can’t believe I’m already thinking about o4) as a b2b saas project seems unlikely to me. Specifically I’d put <30% odds that the o4-series have their prices jacked up or its API access restricted in order to allow some companies to monopolize its usage for more than 3 months without an open release. This won’t apply if the only models in the o4 series cost $1000s per answer to serve, since that’s just a “normal” kind of expensive.
Then, we have to consider that other labs are 1-1.5 years behind, and it’s hard to imagine Meta (for example) doing this in anything like the current climate.
there are too many AI companies for this deal to work on all of them
Realistically, I think there are like 3-4 labs[1] that matter, OAI, DM, Anthropic, Meta.
some of these AI companies will have strong kinda-ideological commitments to not doing this
Even if that was true, they will be at the whim of investors who are almost all big tech companies.
this is better done by selling (even at a lower revenue) to anyone who wants an AI SWE than selling just to Oracle.
This is the explicit claim I was making with the WTP argument. I think this is firmly not true, and OpenAI will make more money by selling just to Oracle. What evidence causes you to disagree?
This is a very interesting point. I have upvoted this post even though I disagree with it because I think the question of “Who will pay, and how much will they pay, to restrict others’ access AI?” is important.
My instinct is that this won’t happen, because there are too many AI companies for this deal to work on all of them, and some of these AI companies will have strong kinda-ideological commitments to not doing this. Also, my model of (e.g. OpenAI) is that they want to eat as much of the world’s economy as possible, and this is better done by selling (even at a lower revenue) to anyone who wants an AI SWE than selling just to Oracle.
o4 (God I can’t believe I’m already thinking about o4) as a b2b saas project seems unlikely to me. Specifically I’d put <30% odds that the o4-series have their prices jacked up or its API access restricted in order to allow some companies to monopolize its usage for more than 3 months without an open release. This won’t apply if the only models in the o4 series cost $1000s per answer to serve, since that’s just a “normal” kind of expensive.
Then, we have to consider that other labs are 1-1.5 years behind, and it’s hard to imagine Meta (for example) doing this in anything like the current climate.
Hm, this violates my model of the world.
Realistically, I think there are like 3-4 labs[1] that matter, OAI, DM, Anthropic, Meta.
Even if that was true, they will be at the whim of investors who are almost all big tech companies.
This is the explicit claim I was making with the WTP argument. I think this is firmly not true, and OpenAI will make more money by selling just to Oracle. What evidence causes you to disagree?
American/Western labs.