Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Consider the wisdom of speculating on the incredibly fast adoption of the internet and mobile technologies, and on that basis investing heavily in whatever mobile carrier had the fastest network.

The speculation that the AI investment sector depends on is not just that adoption is incredible and that the value it generates is high, it's ALSO that the companies will be able to capture a significant amount of that value generation for themselves via fees or some other mechanism.

Are the LLM vendors more comparable to Google/Apple in this scenario, or more comparable to AT&T and Bell?

While it's an interesting question whether Anthropic and OpenAI can capture that value, I find the telecom comparisons not so apt.

In this comparison they are more like Apple and Google: they are ahead in research and are able to offer better technology than their competitors.

The six month gap between the open-weight models and the frontier has not closed yet.

Tne value gap is closing, as corporates wind back token budgets towards relative sanity and reassess what they're getting for their money.

The bubble exists because c-suite people are sheep. They follow the herd, and the frontier CEO wolf-wannabes have been trying to herd them in a profitable direction.

But herds are easily frightened, and there's always a danger they'll stampede in a different direction.

And the risk of a catastrophic AI-enhanced online blackout is increasing.

I disagree. For my own enterprise job, Opus 5.5 with a $500/month API budget is the best option.

The cheaper open-weight ones, even if they were available with our enterprise contracts, would be a huge downgrade.

If you are comparing AI to other technologies you fundamentally just don't get it. Yes it is actually different this time...