5 ms·

The consumers are getting huge wins. Model costs continue to collapse while capability improves. Competition is fantastic.

mrandish 7mo ago
> The consumers are getting huge wins. However, the investors currently subsidizing those wins to below cost may be getting huge losses.
- credit_guy 7mo ago
  Yes, but that's the nature of the game, and they know it.
doom2 7mo ago
> Model costs continue to collapse And yet RAM prices are still sky high. Game consoles are getting more expensive, not cheaper, as a result. When will competition benefit those consumers? Or consumers of desktop RAM?
- nasreddin 7mo ago
  The free market has simply decided these consumers are not as relevant as the others.
  - niek_pas 7mo ago
    Maybe the free market is wrong.
    - anomaly_ 7mo ago
      It can’t be. Those uses are suboptimal, hence the users aren’t willing to pay the new prices.
  - acjohnson55 7mo ago
    Not really. Investors with hundreds of billions of dollars have decided it. The process by which capital has been allocated the way it has isn't some mathematically natural or optimal thing. Our market is far from free.
    - ETH_start 7mo ago
      Saying "investors with hundreds of billions decided it" makes it sound like a few people just chose the outcome, when in reality prices and capital move because millions of consumers, companies, workers, and smaller investors keep making choices every day. Big investors only make money if their decisions match what people actually want; they can't just command success. If they guess wrong, others profit by allocating money better, so having influence isn't the same as having control. The system isn't mathematically perfect, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. It works through an evolutionary process: bad bets lose money, better ones gain more resources. Any claim that the outcome is suboptimal only really means something if the claimant can point to a specific alternative that would reliably do better under the same conditions. Otherwise critics are mostly just expressing personal frustration with the outcome.

mrandish 7mo ago

> The consumers are getting huge wins. However, the investors currently subsidizing those wins to below cost may be getting huge losses.

credit_guy 7mo ago
Yes, but that's the nature of the game, and they know it.

doom2 7mo ago

> Model costs continue to collapse And yet RAM prices are still sky high. Game consoles are getting more expensive, not cheaper, as a result. When will competition benefit those consumers? Or consumers of desktop RAM?

nasreddin 7mo ago
The free market has simply decided these consumers are not as relevant as the others.
- niek_pas 7mo ago
  Maybe the free market is wrong.
  - anomaly_ 7mo ago
    It can’t be. Those uses are suboptimal, hence the users aren’t willing to pay the new prices.
- acjohnson55 7mo ago
  Not really. Investors with hundreds of billions of dollars have decided it. The process by which capital has been allocated the way it has isn't some mathematically natural or optimal thing. Our market is far from free.
  - ETH_start 7mo ago
    Saying "investors with hundreds of billions decided it" makes it sound like a few people just chose the outcome, when in reality prices and capital move because millions of consumers, companies, workers, and smaller investors keep making choices every day. Big investors only make money if their decisions match what people actually want; they can't just command success. If they guess wrong, others profit by allocating money better, so having influence isn't the same as having control. The system isn't mathematically perfect, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. It works through an evolutionary process: bad bets lose money, better ones gain more resources. Any claim that the outcome is suboptimal only really means something if the claimant can point to a specific alternative that would reliably do better under the same conditions. Otherwise critics are mostly just expressing personal frustration with the outcome.