Thread

1. talon8635 · 1790012972 · focus · HN ↗

   Could there be a benefit to releasing a new model, slowly dumbing it down over a couple months, then releasing a new model that’s marginally if at all better than the original to create a perceived improvement when in reality there isn’t really one?

   For an industry that’s stagnant in progress yet relies on new frequent releases to survive (non-progress being an existential risk), this could make sense.

   I have no idea if that’s what’s happened, I completely pulled it out of my butt. And I have no idea is the actual frontier is stagnating.

   1. kleiba2 · 1790014085 · focus · HN ↗

      > Could there be a benefit to releasing a new model, slowly dumbing it down over a couple months, then releasing a new model that’s marginally if at all better than the original to create a perceived improvement when in reality there isn’t really one?

      Not unless your competitors do the same, or else you will only be perceived as falling behind others.

      1. talon8635 · 1790019869 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes that makes sense. In my hypothetical, the industry frontier is stagnating, meaning no one is making big breakthroughs, so they all resort to this.

         If one lab makes a breakthrough, can the other labs just distill to bear parity anyways and then set a new baseline industry wide.

         I’m quite ignorant on this topic, so if any of this sounds moronic, forgive me

         1. senordevnyc · 1790057605 · focus · HN ↗

            So are they making big breakthroughs, or are they stagnating?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.