Remarkable how most of the major companies have the same AI business model, which is "how can I pay the least amount of money to humans to create an app that does a bad job replacing humans?"
God forbid they pay a bunch of humans to build a good product that augments what other humans are doing.
https://gizmodo.com/github-copilot-ai-microsoft-openai-chatgpt-1850915549
@maxkennerly Paying a bunch of humans to build *and maintain* purpose-built or sector-specific AI products that will help other humans do their work better is the only way to create actual useful AI tools but nobody wants to do that.
@MisuseCase @maxkennerly ...except Microsoft.
@LouisIngenthron @MisuseCase @maxkennerly
Though the article points out that their approach, too, is so far a money-loser.
@codefolio @MisuseCase @maxkennerly Right, because, like most early tech ventures, capturing the market share matters more than profiting at first.
@codefolio @MisuseCase @maxkennerly It's Microsoft. They can afford it. Over time, the tech will get cheaper and their prices will go up. And by then, they'll have a commanding lead on the market and a shitload of training data to give them a lead over other companies.
Right now, we're just paying with usage data instead of dollars.
@LouisIngenthron @MisuseCase @maxkennerly
Certainly Microsoft can afford it for quite some time. As XBox proves, they can lose a ton of money for many years waiting to get a big profitable market position.
As many of their other attempts for many years prove, they often lose a ton of money and then *don't* get that.
Though perhaps you're right and the tech will get cheaper. So far it's been heading the other direction, rapidly.
@LouisIngenthron @MisuseCase @maxkennerly
Sure. But if (like the other ones mentioned) it costs 4x or more what they're making on it, capturing the market may not be nearly enough.