HN user

marcammann

15 karma
Posts2
Comments8
View on HN

I wrote up something I’ve been chewing on for a bit.

AI feels very competitive right now with new models, new benchmarks, new products every week. But I’m less sure it stays that way once you look below the model layer.

Training and serving serious AI systems still depends on a lot of scarce infrastructure: GPUs, data centers, cloud compute, power, networking, and the talent that's deeply "in the know".

The awkward bit is that the companies with the best access to that infrastructure are often the same companies building the models everyone else is trying to compete with.

I don’t think the answer is “government should run AI.” That sounds like a great way to make everything worse.

But I do think there’s a real question around infrastructure access. If compute becomes the bottleneck, how do we make sure smaller companies, researchers, and new entrants still have a shot?

Open models help. A lot. But even an open model needs to run somewhere.

This is Part 1, so it’s mostly me trying to frame the problem before getting into possible solutions. I’d genuinely like pushback, especially from people who think I’m overstating the monopoly / infrastructure angle.

What am I missing?

The education space definitely relies on Google (was also big during the pandemic) and the tools are decent.

But I was definitely surprised about the mentions of Chromecast and Youtube TV, particularly YouTube TV. All of the cord cutters I talked to opted for Fubo, Hulu or DirectTV. Good to hear it sees adoption. Is there a marketshare analysis that you're aware of?

To that extent, I also found that Android is usually treated as a 2nd class citizen. Which is understandable, given the marketshare, but frustrating nonetheless. It often sounds like something is easily do-able (like Accessibility) ... IF you're on iOS. We recently developed an app for a client of ours for Android, replicating their native iOS app in React Native. That was not a good experience.

Well, they used two steps. First they identified a sample set of contributors that have self identified, thus validated to some extent, their gender.

Further down they then distinguish between contributors where the gender can be inferred from looking at their name & profile picture. Splitting the group of those 35% which were identified via Google+ into two separate groups - identifiable vs. non-identifiable.