I agree it's too early to call for sure, but just to clarify: The naysayers are nearly always right. We just only remember the times they were wrong.
Not to worry though, the geniuses at Meta and a16z are sure that AI will stick the landing (after betting the farm on Metaverse and Blockchain respectively).
The space race had naysayers; the NYT printed the opinion that manned flight would take one to ten million years a week before the Wright Brothers; the iPod was lame with less space than a Nomad; SpaceX and Tesla were both dismissed when they were young; 3D printing likewise dismissed as if it was only plastic trinkets; and I've seen plenty of people here on HackerNews proclaiming that "AI will never ${x}" for various things some of which had already been accomplished by that point.
There's always a naysayer. You can use their mere existence as evidence for much, it has to be the specific arguments.
People here are criticizing the business fundamentals of the openAI company. What are your takes on its finances? Or are you just on board, everything is great, do not look behind the curtain where we hide our five billion dollar losses?
S&P 6x
Nasdaq 24x
Sticking your money in tech may have ups and downs but has not done badly. Also AI will be huge in a way blockchain and the metaverse were not. Also re blockchain if you'd bought bitcoin rather than some bs startup you'd have done well. Though OpenAI may be in the bs startup category... dunno.
But I’m not so sure the naysayers are right about blockchain though. The ecosystem is still growing and apparently replacing cash in countries that don’t have a functional currency system.
Wait what?
Also the most memorable ones are when people were dismissive but ultimately wrong about the viability of the business (like the "dropbox" comment).
But I think a not uncommon pattern with "too big to fail" startups is that they can change their definition of success or failure in order to claim victory. Or at least, in order for Sam to do so.
They might not reach the stated goal of AGI or even general profitability, but if Sam and some key investors manage to come out ahead at the end of their maneuvering, then I'm sure they'll claim victory (and that they changed the world and all that pomp).
It's sad, but at this point I pretty much assume anyone out of SV who claims they're trying to change the world are either liars, incompetents, or both. That whole culture has just been on a tear of goodwill-burning.
Maybe not. But I always thought that, especially with their lobbying efforts and desire to project a sense of seriousness (even if unfounded) around those efforts, that it was very unlikely they would release a next-gen model before the US election.
I agree that the marketing/messaging, esp on social media, is borderline deranged, swinging between “we are basically The Foundation” and “pweese try my pwoduct i hope u love it (heart hands emoji)”