Totally agree. When this current wave of GenAI really started heating up, I guess 2020-2021, my analysis was very straightforward. What are the high level inputs to long-term success? I basically came up with a couple of criteria:
1. Data. Lots of data.
2. Money. Lots of money.
3. Access to necessary hardware.
4. Business alignment/will to do it.
5. Access to talent, current and future.
This is certainly incomplete/naive. In my mind, though, Google was the clear answer.
On a more personal level, I've been deep into the Google ecosystem since I got diederich@gmail.com in 2005. (I actually paid 50 cents on ebay to get a very early invite.) There was no question in my mind that Google's AI work would deeply integrate into their whole ecosystem in very powerful and productive ways. (Yes, I can join you to discuss, at length, the various ways that Google's dominance is problematic/scary.)
Having said all that, I'm quite happy that there is, at the moment, a very rich competitive landscape. Indeed, not too long ago, with Gemini Pro 3.1 languishing, I moved most of my deeper thinking work to ChatGPT, which was, for me at least, clearly outperforming Gemini.
While I certainly didn't anticipate it, Google's strategy of making their fast/relatively inexpensive models surprisingly powerful has been a welcomed surprise.
I think you forgot to mention energy efficiency. If you build AI hardware in-house, your only other expense is energy and the producer surplus is greatest for companies producing below the equilibrium market price.
It's the difference between billions in revenue and billions in profits.
LWN is one of the cornerstones of my very successful career.
Starting from the beginning, I have (at least) read through every story and every article, every week, since 1998. Especially in the beginning, there was a lot in each article I didn't understand. I would try to do some digging into those topics.
One way or another, just the weekly exposure to absolutely top notch technical writing was foundational to me.
When newer folk would ask me how to really get good with Linux, I would always point them to LWN.net.
I've been a subscriber since the beginning. That small investment is the least I can do given the incalculable value LWN has brought to me.
Sorry to be that guy, but... Please consider donating a significant amount to them, given that they have been a cornerstone of your very successful career.
I did something similar in the past, in relation to Ubuntu, and I never regretted it, even if that money would have been very useful if spent in other ways.
I couldn't find anything about donation on the site. Just in case I'm blind, is there one or is subscribing or getting a gift certificate the only way? I should also definitely put lwn on my "charity list".
"It simply does not add up that someone who lacks purely technical skills in an area can make good decisions."
I've been thinking about this and your related points, and I've been (with growing concern) instinctively in agreement.
Another analogy has been coming up. I started programming (as a kid) in the late 1970s, first with BASIC (of course) but pretty quickly moved to machine language for obvious performance reasons, and then to C, followed by many other languages. In the late 1980s, at university, I learned proper assembly language, and used it quite a bit.
Back then, I was pretty good with assembly/machine language. Not super star or expert level, but comfortably solid. Since then though I've spent very little time at that low level.
Granted, such early exposure and experience has been a pretty big fairly indirect benefit. But over the years, I've met and worked with many really smart, productive people who have never had any experience at that low level, and that lack was rarely noticeable.
For any given 'layer of abstraction', there is some use in being familiar with the lower layers. I think, in general, the closer the lower layer is, the more useful the knowledge is. For example, how useful is deep knowledge of CPU microcode to a Java programmer? Perhaps some, but not a lot.
In the tech world, GenAI is likely to push most everyone quite a ways up the tower of abstractions. We're in the middle of that right now, and it certainly feels pretty alarming to me.
The biggest uncertainty that comes into my mind is how insanely fast this change is coming upon us. My crawl up the abstraction tower happened over the course of about 12 or so years, from machine language/assembly to C then to Perl then to many other things. In retrospect, that felt pretty fast.
GenAI is seemingly pushing us in that direction many times more quickly.
I get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship explode and explode while it's being developed without understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach SpaceX takes and not like it. That's going to hurt the stock price and therefore hurt the company. Before, when Starship exploded people just pointed and laughed at Musk but SpaceX kept going. For better or for worse it doesn't really bother him, don't forget he got literally laughed out of the room when he proposed a re-usable orbital booster. Now those people actually matter because they'll sell/short and kill the stock price and therefore materially hurt the company. I replied to a sibling about Tesla, remember the shorts nearly killed Tesla before it even had a chance. The technology was there and the concept proven but the shorters almost killed the whole thing. IMO Tesla went public way too early and it almost cost them everything. idk what SpaceX has to gain by going public, are they hurting for cash? Based on the pace of development in Boca Chica it doesn't appear so.
/not a finance or investment expert just my observations and feelings
> get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship explode and explode while it's being developed without understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach SpaceX takes
Investors have been doing this since SpaceX first raised outside funding. American capital markets are not that risk averse.
tbf those investments weren't traded on a liquid market, and I suspect Founders Fund are less worried about short term setbacks than your average mutual fund or mug punter.
But of course we also know that Musk-run public companies are immune to normal dynamics of worrying about next quarter's returns (or even worrying about the CEO publicly torching his brand equity) so the very last thing I'd imagine happening is SpaceX becoming risk averse and profitability focused
Those funds have more capital to allocate to profitable publicly traded companies than they did to speculative bets on unicorns, and more importantly now have an easy offramp if their investment thesis isn't as aligned with the Kardashev scale as the true believers.
The risks they care about will be more "Starlink growth slows" or "orbital datacentre has horrible operating economics" than "Starship launch anomaly" though, and I agree it'll make zero difference to how SpaceX operates both because Elon isn't afraid to tank valuations and because retail loves him unconditionally. And the bull case for SpaceX is still stronger than the bull case for Tesla which happily trades at valuations north of $1b.
I expect that the amount of "good influence" institutional shareholders can exert on SpaceX leadership and operations is about zero, and the amount of "bad influence" is more than that. Thus, the only way this can affect SpaceX's leadership is negative.
A big part of how SpaceX did what they did is that they weren't beholden to institutional pressures. They could afford to take major risks. This may change when a pool of investors who don't care about space and just want the line to go up end up being stakeholders.
Nothing all that exciting, just pleasure from finding a photo in a local newspaper of my great-great-grandfather’s (approximately, I don’t remember the specifics at the moment) car being pulled by horses out of a local river, or researching a family name I found in a cemetery and finding interesting tidbits about their history.
Probably the most impressive effort I stumbled upon was a woman from rural Indiana who collected (and typed up) thousands of pages of local history & genealogy in the mid-20th century. Was interesting reading personal accounts of Morgan’s Raid, for example.
I found this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksFhXFuRblg "NBC Nightly News, June 24, 1975" I strongly urge people to watch this, it's 30 minutes but there are many very illuminating insights within. One word for you: Exxon.
While I was young in 1975, I did watch ABC's version of the news with my grandparents, and continued up through high school. Then in the late 1980s I got on the Internet and well you know the rest.
"Back Then", a high percentage of everybody I or my grandparents or my friends came into contact with watched one of ABC, NBC, or CBS news most nights. These three networks were a bit different, but they generally they all told the same basic stories as each other.
This was effectively our shared reality. Later in high school as I became more politically focused, I could still talk to anybody, even people who had completely opposite political views as myself. That's because we had a shared view of reality.
Today, tens of millions of people see the exact same footage of an officer involved shooting...many angles, and draw entirely different 'factual' conclusions.
So yes, 50 years ago, we in the United States generally had a share view of reality. That was good in a lot of ways, but it did essentially allow a small set of people in power to decide that convincing a non-trivial percentage of the US population that Exxon was a friendly, family oriented company that was really on your side.
Worth the trade off? Hard to say, but at least 'back then' it was possible, and even common, to have ground political discussions with people 'on the other side', and that's pretty valuable.
> 'back then' it was possible, and even common, to have ground political discussions with people 'on the other side'
As long as that common ground falls within acceptable parameters; couldn't talk too much about anything remotely socialist or being anti-war.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
1. Data. Lots of data.
2. Money. Lots of money.
3. Access to necessary hardware.
4. Business alignment/will to do it.
5. Access to talent, current and future.
This is certainly incomplete/naive. In my mind, though, Google was the clear answer.
On a more personal level, I've been deep into the Google ecosystem since I got diederich@gmail.com in 2005. (I actually paid 50 cents on ebay to get a very early invite.) There was no question in my mind that Google's AI work would deeply integrate into their whole ecosystem in very powerful and productive ways. (Yes, I can join you to discuss, at length, the various ways that Google's dominance is problematic/scary.)
Having said all that, I'm quite happy that there is, at the moment, a very rich competitive landscape. Indeed, not too long ago, with Gemini Pro 3.1 languishing, I moved most of my deeper thinking work to ChatGPT, which was, for me at least, clearly outperforming Gemini.
While I certainly didn't anticipate it, Google's strategy of making their fast/relatively inexpensive models surprisingly powerful has been a welcomed surprise.