Insightful analysis. I think this industry is headed towards consolidation. There are notable barriers to entry, whether in the development of LLMs or access to capital. Microsoft does appear to have an edge here. However, generally, big tech (Google, Amazon, etc. ) can buy off competition, and that competition, especially from startups, does have the incentive to be bought by these.
Who is all this for? I think it's for big tech. They'll build it, then they start rationing it to extract the most out of it. Time will tell, and its' never wise to rule out possibilities, esp in the tech industry. Still, I believe these big companies have their hands on the pulse of all developments in AI, and they'll use their monopoly to ensure independent players cannot pose a threat in the long run.
I agree with you Patrick. This is all squarely for big tech. However, I wonder if it is for big tech at the expense of the working class. What are your thoughts?
Yes, but not in a way that hasn't been the case before anyway. The working class loses. Big tech can keep prices high and lobby to defeat regulatory prices that would benefit users - these will only become more necessary as the need to stem addiction to technology becomes clear.
The working class has never really had a chance. Production of technology remains monopolized. Even in stock markets, big tech remains powerful, attracting the a sizeable chunk of investments. Tech companies' borrowing is so big as to determine the overall health of financial markets. This is lots of power.
The only possible advantage will be that big tech will continue to make so much money to afford experimentation, and thus new products for consumers. Smaller companies and startups can reap from the positive externalities of these dynamics. They will remain players, but they'll largely be guests in an industry where big tech dominates.
To some degree, this is a capitalism problem, not really a tech one, no different from, say, the way big pharma can ring fence gains. As always, it's consumers that pay for the inherent imperfections, and the cost rise per one's disposable income, so the working class pays the highest price.
Great read! Generative AI's scope is immense. Thanks for shedding light on this topic. https://colaninfotech.com/blog/google-generative-ai-search-vs-chatgpt/
Thanks for the kind words Michael. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Insightful analysis. I think this industry is headed towards consolidation. There are notable barriers to entry, whether in the development of LLMs or access to capital. Microsoft does appear to have an edge here. However, generally, big tech (Google, Amazon, etc. ) can buy off competition, and that competition, especially from startups, does have the incentive to be bought by these.
Who is all this for? I think it's for big tech. They'll build it, then they start rationing it to extract the most out of it. Time will tell, and its' never wise to rule out possibilities, esp in the tech industry. Still, I believe these big companies have their hands on the pulse of all developments in AI, and they'll use their monopoly to ensure independent players cannot pose a threat in the long run.
I agree with you Patrick. This is all squarely for big tech. However, I wonder if it is for big tech at the expense of the working class. What are your thoughts?
Yes, but not in a way that hasn't been the case before anyway. The working class loses. Big tech can keep prices high and lobby to defeat regulatory prices that would benefit users - these will only become more necessary as the need to stem addiction to technology becomes clear.
The working class has never really had a chance. Production of technology remains monopolized. Even in stock markets, big tech remains powerful, attracting the a sizeable chunk of investments. Tech companies' borrowing is so big as to determine the overall health of financial markets. This is lots of power.
The only possible advantage will be that big tech will continue to make so much money to afford experimentation, and thus new products for consumers. Smaller companies and startups can reap from the positive externalities of these dynamics. They will remain players, but they'll largely be guests in an industry where big tech dominates.
To some degree, this is a capitalism problem, not really a tech one, no different from, say, the way big pharma can ring fence gains. As always, it's consumers that pay for the inherent imperfections, and the cost rise per one's disposable income, so the working class pays the highest price.