Thread

1. pradn · 1790371022 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm not sure what this means for AI startups if their innovations can be copied by OSS so quickly (what, like 2 weeks?). There's "consumer surplus" for everyone, to borrow an economic concept. But we do ideally want some of the surplus to flow to the innovator, too. I know there were precursors, but that's fine - it's hard to have a totally novel idea in such a popular field. I don't know what the end game is for TypeSafe - they'd need to demonstrate perpetually better results, or compete in another axis: UX, support, custom solutions, etc. So much of the time, someone proving a concept, or it simply getting enough publicity, is enough for a "Cambrian explosion" of follow-ups and copies. Famously, that was true for "Attention is All You Need", and the general idea of "next-token prediction" being so powerful.

   We've stumbled into general differentiable models..

   1. tukHelix · 1790381608 · focus · HN ↗

      Today we might need to evaluate “innovation” in a new standard, and have a different expectation for what innovator would be awarded. Getting public attention in such an era where innovation happens every a few days could’ve already been something precious. And that attention would allow TypeSafe to be heard easily next time. Like OpenAI, Anthropic, or any others, they launch frequently but still each time they launch something new, that would hit headlines. I think that’s the “surplus” flown to innovators today.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.