They will allow revenue sharing so then it's a matter of how many customers they'd be able to offer you for your app; and whether it makes sense for you to distribute through them or bypass them and distribute yourself.

This business model will only serve them in the long run. Luckily for us, open source llms are getting traction and we won't depend on "open"AI to implement features on our apps.

Well, they tried to put a government sponsored moat in the way of other people building AI companies that would be competing with them. Thankfully, they mostly seem to have whiffed the ball on that one. This plan of theirs to monetize the creation of agents and other tools that take advantage of their underlying infrastructure is a good secondary kind of moat. Because, if your tool relies on their underlying infrastructure, even if you could build something different, the infrastructure is required. This may be a "less-evil" way to keep them building things and making tools available without completely locking out competition.

Every prompt you put in somebody else's LLM goes into the training set of the next iteration of said LLM, with the explicit purpose of replacing you as a cognitively, and therefore economically, relevant entity. The only dignified move is not to play, though it's a very difficult choice. It probably not a winning move, though at this point there are no obvious winning moves -- you and I and all our loved ones will be obsoleted and replaced by tech within the next few years. Concretely, to not play means to stop feeding the machine data, i.e. disconnecting from the digital world. Given how digitalized society is becoming, possibly also from the modern society altogether. Godspeed.

I think all technological revolutions have caused similar transformations which obsolete certain types of activities and push novel activities to the forefront.

Not playing is certainly possible but could be a losing strategy as well.

> you and I and all our loved ones will be obsoleted and replaced by tech within the next few years

What is this? When has this ever proved true, despite being spouted throughout all history? It's such an easy, throwaway and meaningless sentence.

Please explain further. Replaced how? By what? What's going to happen to the humans in the next few years?

What is your job? Chances are, it’s nothing an AGI (based on LLMs) can’t do, and an AGI is possible, today. People are building these things today, check out GitHub. And if you don’t believe GPT-4 cannot do your job cheaper than you, just wait for GPT-N, which will be able to.

Progress isn't linear. Point me to an AGI on GitHub. Our definition of work changes based on the greatest possible technology at any given moment.

it's just an agent framework

I like to think about it from the perspective of the far future, looking back on me as a historical actor. I have no idea what will happen exactly, of course, but I can't imagine a moral/social crisis of the past where "cross your fingers and hope it goes away" is a move I'd approve of...

That said, your worry is one I definitely share. I guess I just hope more people think of ways they can try to ride/shape this wave, rather than stop/weather it.

When your startup is a repackaging of another company's tech I don't see how you can be surprised when a big player swoops in to kill you off.

What did you expect? Surely it was just an MVP, and you expected OpenAI to commoditize its complements? Right?

On the long run, if your idea or app can be expressed as a flavor of a general GPT, you will not be able to compete with the AI gorillas. The space for AI startups is with custom, highly niched data or capabilities, that cannot be found in a general corpus, or that you can uniquely generate or control.

I thought about the same thing, I've seen a lot of apps that have similar ideas like "ChatGPT chatbot for your data or your website", I don't know how will they deal with it.