[–] paxy 2 days ago
Let someone else take on the research and training costs, and charge a massive premium for your hardware.
[–] diogenes_atx 2 days ago
Data center hardware, by contrast, is a scarce commodity with rapidly growing demand, and therefore likely to capture most of the profits from AI and software development, if current market conditions persist.
Today's IT business trends represent a remarkable change in the industry compared to the situation 50 years ago, when startups like Microsoft and Oracle, whose business models were based exclusively on software development, challenged and overthrew the dominant player, IBM, whose primary source of revenue was from hardware.
[–] mm321 2 days ago
the linked article is from July, it is almost three months old.
Now there may be a very relevant recent story; it has the potential to reduce the flow of new open weight models. This could change quite a few expectations, which are based on open weight models:
"China’s STAR 50 Index Falls 40%, Erasing $480 Billion as AI Stocks Crash"
https://www.technology.org/2026/10/27/china-ai-stock-bubble-...
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ai-bubble-has-alre...
Reuters says there is a run, but also deeper reasons:
"There has been no obvious selling trigger in China, although traders said high prices, tax bills and the threat of the US or other nations banning Chinese equipment in data centers all contributed."
So far I don't see any discussions of this story on HN, interestingly.
[–] carefree-bob 2 days ago
Notice that you also see Google really struggling (and falling behind) in the AI race. This, despite massive resources and being responsible for key pioneering research. Same reason why IBM has failed in this area. The big established companies tend to shut their brightest people into research departments where they write papers and produce demos while the main cash cow areas remain undisturbed, so they have collections of bright people and they have money, but they rarely let their brightest people make big bets with the money, whereas startups do.
It's also why poor people spend more on lottery tickets than rich people.
[–] bushbaba 2 days ago
Basically you want to run an LLM, Amazon. You want to build an LLM not Amazon
[–] alienbaby 2 days ago
[–] cwillu 2 days ago
Sounds like the opposite of what you're suggesting they're doing?
[–] boringg 2 days ago
[–] aleph_minus_one 2 days ago
The problem was rather that Microsoft had no real plan what they wanted to get out of AI. If they had a plan, they could have laser-focused their all-in on AI.
Instead, Microsoft just AI-slopped a lot of their bread-and-butter products, making them much worse than before. If AI is as revolutionizing and beloved by users as Microsoft believes, Microsoft could easily have created an offering like "Windows AI Pack" or "Microsoft AI" that should sell like hot cakes.
On the other hand, if you have to force AI functionality onto the users, it should be considered as a strong sign that perhaps it is not something that the users want.
[–] trimethylpurine 1 day ago
[–] ngc248 1 day ago
[–] charlieyu1 1 day ago
[–] aleph_minus_one 20 hours ago
In consideration how much spying functionality was added with Windows 10 (which worsened even more with Windows 11), and that Microsoft made it insanely hard to install Windows 11 without creating some Microsoft account, it is actually very sensible that people don't want to upgrade to Windows 10/11, despite the technological improvements that these versions provide.
[–] roryirvine 1 day ago
The bulk of the hands-on-keyboard time for those disciplines now seems to be using Copilot 365 as "fancy autocomplete" and "make this presentation better", Copilot Notebooks for deeper work, and coming up with all sorts of Copilot integrations and agents for managing email, Teams meetings and chats.
It's almost as if "copilot" has already become the generic term for "professional LLM", and many genuinely can't understand why us techies find it so limiting.
[–] red-iron-pine 1 day ago
3 of the 4 orgs I consult with have actively warned people not to use it, and/or to only use their approved AI tool (OpenAI/Claude/Gemini)
clippy 2.0 is not selling well
[–] mancerayder 1 day ago
Windows (and increasingly Apple) updates are more of a sigh and lip biting experience than an exciting one.
I'm really happy not to have touched Windows recently at all.
At work Microsoft's updates are buggy - Outlook and Teams are pretty awful on corporate Macs. Teams especially, it has a bunch of papercut type annoyances. And updates torture Corp IT.
[–] appplication 2 days ago
[–] atleastoptimal 2 days ago
[–] daveguy 2 days ago
[–] nostromo 2 days ago
[–] whatever1 2 days ago
We all feel more productive. But did your rust rewrite or my fancy react dashboard produce more value?
[–] Hnrobert42 2 days ago
[–] zrobotics 2 days ago
Seriously asking, why would this look like a good business model to be in? If they don't need anyone besides a technical non-developer to create the product, why would this look like a good business? If it's B2B, then most of their customers will have that type of IT person on staff.
[–] fn-mote 2 days ago
[–] michaelchisari 2 days ago
For decades, velocity, time to market and features all drove the industry. But AI puts speed in everyone's hands.
But quality is still hard. Maybe harder than ever.
[–] mkotlikov 2 days ago
[–] marcus_holmes 2 days ago
Separate question: "now that AI is here and development isn't a moat any more, how does a business defend itself from competition?"
That second question is a direct result of AI. Five years ago the amount of cost and effort spent on software development was a moat. Now it's not. So that answers the first question completely, I think.
As for the second question - market sector knowledge, customer contacts and industry reputation, all the usual non-technical things that make a moat. Also, we may now be living in a world where software companies cannot expect to be monopolies in their markets any more. This company will have to compete with many similar competitors for market share, like in most other markets. I think this is a good thing. Less enshittification will ensue.
[–] bluefirebrand 2 days ago
[–] jnaina 2 days ago
[–] whatever1 2 days ago
[–] nfw2 2 days ago
[–] tehjoker 2 days ago
[–] leptons 2 days ago
[–] selcuka 2 days ago
What exactly will cause that? Hardware costs are (generally) going down, and open weight models are getting smarter. The subsidised subscription prices will go away, sure, but I don't see the average token getting more expensive.
[–] fn-mote 2 days ago
Watch what the open weight models can do. Once they can manage your codebase, you’re safe from gouging.
[–] nradov 2 days ago
[–] lnxg33k1 2 days ago
[–] nradov 2 days ago
Maybe you could use an AI assistant to help you write better HN comments.
[–] steve_adams_86 1 day ago
And it's measurable. We don't just feel more productive; we get grants, we build systems, and we make plans we simply couldn't have before.
[–] vanuatu 2 days ago
i add more value to my company because it lets me ship much faster, debug issues faster, onboard new people faster
total enterprise ai spend is climbing https://ramp.com/data/ai-index#adoption#overall
i know multiple stealth startups with 9 figure revenues and profitable and growing
lab arr is climbing
given the recent crackdown on token spend and from speaking to execs they are very focused on the exact ROI they will get from AI
Note that business revenues in competitive markets may actually not change that much, because if everyone is using the same models there's no competitive advantage from using AI. but if one of them didn't use AI they would fall hopelessly behind
[–] deadbabe 2 days ago
[–] nfw2 2 days ago
[–] happymellon 2 days ago
[–] nfw2 2 days ago
[–] Art9681 2 days ago
But make no mistake. Being more productive does not equal higher profits because your customers think you've added value. Both value and productivity are highly subjective terms which is why it is measured differently depending on where you work.
Most businesses adapted to AI by shipping a lot more features in smaller increments of time. What they should have done is become much more ambitious and build moon shots in two quarters instead. You need to go big or go home if you're going all in on AI.
[–] onemoresoop 2 days ago
[–] adventured 2 days ago
It's 1987: The PC is underdelivering.
It's 2000: the Internet is underdelivering.
It's 2010: smartphones are underdelivering.
[–] afpx 2 days ago
Even quantized local models like Qwen3.8 are good enough to handle a lot of drudgery. For example, I hooked my wife's computer up to a local model, and now she finally has a clean desktop. She just drops spreadsheets or powerpoints or whatever on her desktop and automation takes care of everything.
The caveat is that I developed software for 30 years, so I understand most of what it produces and can guide it to make fewer mistakes and fix what it can't do. The biggest challenge has been keeping my requirements focused - it's very easy to gold plate everything and prematurely optimize.
The biggest question I ask myself is why am I even still doing this. The smart people are probably already trying to figure out how to pipe raw matter and energy to their homes to build replicators.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.
[–] adventured 2 days ago
You don't want to be in the CD selling or radio business with the Internet & digital & streaming & smartphones & iPods bearing down on you. Go for concerts. Notice that humans are spending more than ever on live concerts. Disney World and Disneyland still command extraordinary pricing power, despite everybody hiding inside on their phones.
LLM clones of eg Photoshop will end up being worthless, like ideas generally. The software will be worthless for the same reason ideas are: they're too easy. Users are hard, software will be (relatively) easy.
Is the value in McDonalds in the food? Everybody knows it's not. McD captured consumers, their heft is extraordinarily difficult to displace. Ie habits, brand awareness, location, etc.
[–] eudamoniac 2 days ago
[–] adventured 2 days ago
The bottom 2/3 of the human market is entirely dead. Their jobs are gone (AI-shored) they just haven't all gotten the forced retirement or pink slips yet, while they click a few more prompts for a few more pay checks. The frontier pushing forward will knock out most of the remaining top 1/3 without breaking a sweat over the next few years. The really good developers will graduate into babysitting AI as managers.
It is legitimately sad, it's millions of high paying jobs just in the US alone. It's going to be brutal on the housing market. Automation came for another field.
[–] malfist 2 days ago
What the hell does this even mean? Literally half of the code in operation I the world is still COBOL. The fuck is this nonsense wiped out
[–] adventured 2 days ago
[–] p-e-w 2 days ago
There’s no way this is even remotely true. JavaScript alone is probably 90+%, considering it’s on almost every website.
[–] lovich 2 days ago
And in before ‘JumpCrissCross chimes in about inference being profitable while ignoring all the investment costs needed to get inference to where it is.
[–] cosmicgadget 2 days ago
[–] gradus_ad 2 days ago
[–] cosmicgadget 2 days ago
[–] fn-mote 2 days ago
[–] zrobotics 2 days ago
I mean, if anything summarizes where we have gotten to as an industry this quote is sure it. From Uber using VC funds to subsidize growth to where the AI players are at...
[–] vanuatu 2 days ago
but profitability is a very narrow view on the labs, and investors are pricing in future free cash flow
you need to take into account the derivative, what is their growth? their opex and capex? their revenue growth? their moat? New product lines and applications?
Not saying that it's a homerun, but there is a case to be made for the labs being wildly profitable in 4-10 years
[–] adventured 2 days ago
They have been chasing extreme growth with cheap money. That enabled them to hyper scale at a pace the world has rarely seen before. They have made the correct choice so far.
The absolute dumbest thing they could have done up to this point is slow down to try to turn a profit. They have not needed to. Market capture is the sole thing they should be focused on. Here's a hint: how many users does GPT have now versus three years ago?
There appears to be very widespread confusion about what purpose turning a profit serves and how business operations actually work.
Go back in time and tell Uber in ~2013-2015 that it needs to immediately become profitable and not focus on capturing the market.
[–] leptons 2 days ago
Uber has to pay back all the billions of dollars it wasted trying to get people to use their platform, and now I can't afford most Uber or Lyft rides, it's way too expensive. So did market capture really work if they had to raise their prices so much as to make the service unworkable for most people? The only time I take uber is if my company pays for it, and that is getting less often.
AI is also going to have to become way too expensive so they can pay back the billions (trillions?) it is borrowing. And, when everyone is laid-off or fired because AI took their job, then who's going to be paying for AI? I guess the companies that lay off all the humans will, but when the wealthy business owners realize they've replaced everything with AI and nobody is buying what they are selling because there's no more jobs, then what?
Sounds like they should worry about profitability, and a lot of other things too.
[–] fn-mote 2 days ago
Hate to say it, but in this case you’re not the market so you are irrelevant.
Here’s data from Chicago, USA, showing Uber and Lyft dominate the market now, so yes, it worked.
https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/chicago-taxi-ridehaili...
[–] vanuatu 2 days ago
The price of a given point on the intelligence frontier is only going to get cheaper, likely 10-20x over the next few years.
[–] redwood 2 days ago
[–] gamblor956 2 days ago
[–] cscheid 2 days ago
[–] BobbyTables2 2 days ago
This isn’t the “hallucinate everything” style of model like the earlier GPT models…
[–] asadotzler 2 days ago
[–] aplummer 2 days ago
[–] ozim 2 days ago
Downside is that OpenAI is already having ads on their chat interface, so I guess it will be crap any time soon.
[–] DennisP 2 days ago
My mother-in-law has a complicated set of medical conditions and sees half a dozen different doctors. Fable with max thinking came up with a bunch of interactions between drugs and conditions that her doctors hadn't considered. We've run its recommendations by one doctor so far and he agreed with everything.
My brother has one friend who used a frontier AI to diagnose his wife's uncommon cancer, and insisted on a test for that. It was correct and she's fine now since they caught it early. Brother has another friend whose wife had back pain after surgery; medical team didn't find what was wrong, he uploaded the scan, and the AI said "oh they left in a staple," which turned out to be correct.
I've started using it to work on a cookbook for the medically prescribed diet I'm on.
[–] happymellon 2 days ago
Sure it has replaced Google for a lot of people. But was that driven more by Google breaking search and actively ranking down good results and putting blocks in the way of seeing even the bad results?
Google had (have?) people using their service out of habit but built a hostile enough environment. We have this "contradiction" where non-tech folks are supposed to be difficult to move off "what they know" yet here we are where they are using ChatGPT to search and be a doctor.
[–] lnkdinsuxs 1 day ago
- File taxes and find issues that "accredited", "certified" entities missed. In one instance, my federal refund increased by nearly $5k. At $20/mo, just the refund is two decades worth of value.
- Appeal health, home and car insurance claims successfully
- Find out details of interesting plants without forking out tens of dollars for an app that claims to do the same but fails to do so most of the time
- Summarize never ending email threads with 20 disinterested parties who would rather not be on the email but have to respond to show they are "engaged"
- Write a convincing email to my mother in law why I cannot meet her this weekend and hold her hand through the tough times she's having with her ethnic neighbor who annoys her with their "ethnic" music and "smell of fish" BBQ
- Locate the user manual for my microwave and what that rapid 3 beeps every 1s for 2 minutes that starts at 10AM since the last 2 days mean
[–] hdgvhicv 2 days ago
[–] gamblor956 2 days ago
[–] derwiki 2 days ago
[–] jgalt212 2 days ago
[–] ButlerianJihad 2 days ago
Unless you're specifically meaning microwave ovens, which are of "limited utility" in a full-service kitchen. I'd have to agree there.
My previous microwave oven was so intensely powerful, that I needed to dial down the power to "7/10" so that it would not destroy my frozen meals. I could never run it at 10/10. My current appliance is very nice, and has an automatic button to run until doneness. Works every time now.
[–] lesuorac 2 days ago
[–] malfist 2 days ago
[–] IshKebab 2 days ago
It's the same with AI. The technology is here now. My friends in financial advice and market research have not lost their jobs immediately, because of momentum.
[–] aplummer 2 days ago
[–] vuurmot 2 days ago
2. greatest hacking tool in history
3. greatest corporate espionage tool in history (stealing of Navier-Stokes solution)
4. greatest accountability transfer tool in history (whoops it was the AI that shot those missiles)
5. greatest capital raising tool in history (we use AI in our startup, and you should give us money)
6. greatest scamming tool in history (cloning people voices for scam calls, etc..)
Edit:Whoops, I didn't read "positively"
[–] redwood 2 days ago
[–] skeeter2020 2 days ago
[–] vuurmot 2 days ago
"democratization of information", maybe if you were too lazy to click on a google link
[–] keeda 2 days ago
Like, a normal person is not going to open up an arXiv preprint from Google search because for approximately the entire population, it's going to be way beyond the limits of their comprehension. They won't even glance at the link, if Google even serves it up as a result.
But, with a chatbot, they could actually ask questions and get answers in a format they can understand. They may get a very rough understanding of the topic, but I would bet it's 100 times better than the same reference explained by modern "science journalism," which insists on presenting the most clickbait-y interpretation they can find.
And this is not theoretical, I've seen my high-school level kids figure out undergrad (or higher) level concepts like locality sensitive hashing with the help of ChatGPT, and I know they understood it because they could sketch out working solutions using those concepts. They didn't get the Mathematical underpinnings, but they understood the high-level behavior and that was enough.
Everybody can now understand anything if they really want to. Nobody is doing it today because they don't know it's possible. But they can, and we should encourage them to do so.
[–] Fnoord 2 days ago
It is tools which are the commons (such as FOSS) and tools such as Wikipedia. But also open standards. LLMs cannibalize on these tools.
Furthermore, no customer wants an AI as customer bot. Especially elder people who are a bit computer illiterate can't find the real support (dark patterns). Can AI help a customer support representative? Oh, absolutely. AI can help a skilled person become better/quicker at certain tasks. But it cannot replace them, and it shouldn't either. If we do, we get all these 'fantastic' tools like *claw.
[–] E-Reverance 2 days ago
[–] shiandow 2 days ago
[–] rpdillon 2 days ago
Advances are still coming rapidly -- we have quite a bit of time before this settles.
[–] redwood 2 days ago
[–] gumby 2 days ago
[–] __MatrixMan__ 2 days ago
[–] Foxhuls 2 days ago
[–] losvedir 2 days ago
> Amazon Is Gutting Its AI Division [July]
[–] geodel 2 days ago
[–] kazinator 2 days ago
[–] kazinator 2 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49082344
This isn't a blip on anyone's radar.
[–] lysace 2 days ago
[–] ahartmetz 2 days ago
[–] kazinator 2 days ago
[–] ChrisArchitect 2 days ago
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-overhauls-ai-strategy...
Couple comments then:
[–] another_twist 18 hours ago
[–] llmslave 2 days ago
[–] nekooooo 2 days ago
[–] onefiftymike 2 days ago
[–] duskwuff 2 days ago
[–] phainopepla2 2 days ago
[–] benibela 2 days ago
[–] monknomo 2 days ago
[–] newsicanuse 2 days ago
[–] kimseungyong 2 days ago
[–] pea 2 days ago
- Single point of billing and vendor is still king in enterprise - look at how much of Ant's revenue flows through AWS Marketplace
- With OSS, models may move to a more of an AWS-shaped problem: host with 5 9s, provide the infra and shovels, do it as cheap as possible, fit them neatly into rest of AWS stack. I think this is actually a huge risk to OpenAI and Anthropic, as more commodization gives hyperscalers more advantage
- Still owns a huge chunk of Anthropic and leverage over compute
With this in mind, I'm not sure why they need a frontier model vs. the playbook they did with Linux (i.e. Kimi-K3-AWS-Enterprise-Edition). They are kind of playing both sides right now I guess, but could really stir things up if they wanted to.
[–] Neywiny 2 days ago
[–] munk-a 2 days ago
[–] villgax 2 days ago
[–] orf 2 days ago
Strange headline given that it seems they are actually just refocusing resources to train a frontier model?
[–] bondolo 2 days ago
This outcome for their years of squandered effort honestly doesn't surprise me as, other than the Graviton/Trainium work, the Amazon efforts were scattershot, half-baked and underinvested. Only the Siri team is more pathetic than the Alexa team. Well maybe Co-pilot stands between those two somewhere.
[–] etothet 2 days ago
[–] miguelspizza 2 days ago
[–] blobbers 2 days ago
Amazon makes 60B+ in profit per year, they don't need to tank that by losing it on training AI / selling tokens.
There are plenty of open weight models out there for it to use with most of the benefit and very little of the downside.
[–] cmiles8 2 days ago
[–] tonymet 2 days ago
funny story actually. I was recruiting an engineer from another stressful team. I pitched to him that we have about 4-6 sevs a quarter, and I was worried he would balk.
He said "that's nothing, when I was at Amazon we had 30 Sevs a week" .
I didn't feel so bad .
[–] nitwit005 2 days ago
I have tried asking people if they've ever used an AI product from certain companies, and you only seem to get "no", or surprise that they have any AI products, for some.
[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
They already sell a lot of the shovels for training and inference and make ample money from that, and there are enough open weight models on the market to make it infeasible to build a large enough moat.
[–] antonvs 2 days ago
> Instead, labor and computing power are being diverted toward a singular “frontier-model effort”
It’s a consolidation, not a withdrawal.
[–] mschuster91 2 days ago
> Instead, labor and computing power are being diverted toward a singular “frontier-model effort” led by Pieter Abbeel, director of the Berkeley Robot Learning Lab whose robotics company Covariant was hoovered up by Amazon in 2024. At the time Abbeel joined the tech giant, Covariant’s founders were working on AI models for robots, which lines up pretty well with Amazon’s push to automate everything it possibly can.
Amazon can't hope to compete in the LLM genAI (what is colloquially known as AI anyway) space. That is toast, the race is over for them, too much competition, no way to make money.
But industrial automation? Globally, Amazon employs about 1M people in fulfillment/operations roles, the utter majority of their headcount. If there is one company on this world that has the money and compute capacity to spare for a high performance, real world application of fusion between modern machine learning and robotics, it's Amazon - and to make life easier for Amazon, unlike every other competitor they don't have to pay or partner with another company for real world testing. They can just go and deploy a robot in their warehouse if they want to.
Achieve a breakthrough in a fully automated picker robot, and they can save half a million people on their payroll, if not more, they'd save shrink loss and handling mishaps as well. That is one hell of an opportunity to save money by R&D. And if they patent everything they do, they can lock their competitors out of that technology for a loooong time.
[–] antonvs 19 hours ago
They're investing their own money in AI, they're just consolidating that investment.
Beyond that, it requires some mind-reading. A "frontier model" that "automates everything it possibly can" seems to imply a scope beyond just robotics.
Also, even if their initial focus is on robotics, innovations in AI are highly likely to come from that area. It's a frontier that the major LLM companies seem to barely be thinking about, but is very important to truly integrated artificial intelligence. Some AI luminaries have argued that that kind of real-world interaction is an essential component of true intelligence. One of the biggest limitations frontier models have currently is the impedance involved in their interface to the real world.
[–] elzbardico 2 days ago
This is something that requires an ethos completely different from how amazon works and the way jeff bezos sees the world.
[–] syngrog66 2 days ago
[–] yaoke259 2 days ago
They are just changing their strategy to invest in a single model? It's not like their AI department is in shambles...
[–] kirykl 2 days ago
[–] geodel 2 days ago
[–] outside1234 2 days ago
[–] dyauspitr 2 days ago
[–] wslh 2 days ago
[–] jnaina 2 days ago
as an amazon shareholder, I applaud this.
[–] darkteflon 2 days ago
“So… what happened to the previous team?”
[–] jdw64 2 days ago
[–] dmix 2 days ago
I might try Google's home option again but I'm not a fan of giving Google second chances since they seem to care even less about committing to products.
[–] christkv 2 days ago
[–] WaitWaitWha 2 days ago
Amazon is not going to pay for AI internally, and sooner or later they will have to add something internal.
[–] idopmstuff 2 days ago
It will always remain weird to me that a publication called Futurism is so outright negative towards our newest technologies.
[–] shoo 2 days ago
[–] FloorEgg 2 days ago
Values drive behavior. Who owns / runs futurism and what are their values?
Journalism / media as activity needs to be sustainable and unfortunately in our current world it's seems very difficult to sustainably remain high integrity. Sometimes it may be greed, but most of the time I think it's survival.
In this case AI is part of what is threatening journalist survivability, so it kind of makes sense.
[–] pingou 2 days ago
If true, Amazon is not really gutting its AI division.
[–] shaunxcode 2 days ago
[–] _bobm 2 days ago
you want edge inference, from decision to small models.
That's it. It will be 2c, please.
[–] Animats 2 days ago
[–] munk-a 2 days ago
[–] kenhwang 2 days ago
You'd think with all the data collected by these tech companies, they'd understand the common usage scenarios of their products. But instead we have AI Alexa that can't egg timer, or Gemini Assistant that can't navigate or make phone calls.
[–] cyberax 2 days ago
[–] layer8 2 days ago
[–] dsr_ 2 days ago
[–] Rapzid 2 days ago
Latency is the #1 UX killer on voice apps, and the latency was terrible compared to Alexa. I used it for like 15 minutes and reverted.
All anyone was talking about was how much worse it was for common tasks.
[–] lnkdinsuxs 2 days ago
The title is clickbait - Amazon is redirecting resources toward another major AI project and that does not, by itself, establish an overall "retreat from AI". The last 5 years have been a time of flux and now companies are starting to focus on niches and gaps in the market.
AI takes substantial focus and investment and we are compute constrained - AWS is correctly consolidating and refocusing by scaling back several of its existing Nova projects (Canvas, Reel) and concentrating resources on a new flagship model effort led by Pieter Abbeel.
If the claim is "sustained failure", what failed against which objectives? Technical capabilities? customer adoption? economics? delivery? The article does little to establish any. Consumer name recognition is a weak substitute for evidence about an enterprise model business!
A good report would have included benchmarks, revenue, or profitability evidence supporting the article's broad failure claim - this lazy "vibecoded" report doesn't even come near.
It credits Bloomberg while linking to Business Insider. That is a straightforward sourcing error - a journalism 101 no no.
If this is the new generation of shoddy, sensationalist "reporting", good riddance!
[–] jan_m_savage 2 days ago
[–] tomhow 2 days ago
Please don't accuse people of writing AI-generated comments. If you suspect it, please email us: hn@ycombinator.com.
[–] jan_m_savage 1 day ago
[–] diogenes_atx 2 days ago
[–] jan_m_savage 2 days ago
[–] GoToRO 2 days ago
[–] jan_m_savage 2 days ago
[–] bob1029 2 days ago
If someone started from zero, how long do we think it would take for them to reach the cost/capability front currently provided by gpt-6.1-terra? How long until OAI figures out a way to distill that down again for pennies on the dollar?
Apple seems to have this sorted. You won't find them chasing OAI, Google and Anthropic around the playground.
https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/company-annou...
[–] futuraperdita 2 days ago
[–] bilalq 2 days ago
When I was at AWS, we had data access locked down very tightly. I was trying to train a model to predict how long various dynamic workloads running on behalf of customers would take. Just getting access to anonymized production data from a DB that my team owned took well over a month and had me compromise heavily on what attributes I could access. I also spent a decent amount of time in meetings with lawyers and compliance folks to explain and justify all our data classifications for PII, retention, access controls, etc. We would review our data policies quite frequently. We needed break-glass procedures to access prod data in our own systems, and it was uncommon to need to resort to that. Even when you broke glass, certain classes of sensitive data would still not be visible to you. On the plus side, We did get quite good at operating and maintaining systems without needing to see sensitive info.
If you contrast that with Meta's disregard for privacy or the way frontier labs disregard the law, it's easy to see why Amazon would struggle in this space.
[–] JohnMakin 2 days ago
[–] bilalq 2 days ago
[–] rkagerer 2 days ago
[–] 22c 2 days ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna_Labs
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Lab126
[–] bilalq 1 day ago
[–] torginus 2 days ago
From my interactions with them, is that they really care about customer success, and everything including AI is a means to an end to them.
I think building a cool product with undefined reliability and capabilities, then selling fantasies about what it will possibly be able to do down the line isn't really what they do - or what their customers are paying for.
[–] JohnMakin 2 days ago
Don’t know to comment about the other areas of their business but AWS has always been excellent for me.
[–] andai 2 days ago
A relevant metaphor is the nuclear arms race. Nobody wants a world full of nukes pointed at each other, but if the other guy is gonna do it...
The argument in this case is, we can't slow down, because China certainly won't, and do you want those guys to build the machine God first? So it's "rational" to maximize p(accidental_skynet).
[–] Arbortheus 2 days ago
[–] piva00 2 days ago
[–] Refreeze5224 2 days ago
[–] shimman 1 day ago
[–] realo 2 days ago
[–] nsagent 2 days ago
[–] lnkdinsuxs 2 days ago
good and bad isn't what Meta and AWS is running with. If AWS trains willy nilly on user data like Meta does, AWS is toast. AWS is already taking a huge risk by now using their own take of AWS FDEs competing against their established ecosystem of consulting companies that used to recommend all 583 of AWS products to host a static webpage. Turning of more customers by training on their data is too much of a risk. That's the "good" - a risk analysis.
Meta doesn't care if you stop using Facebook, Whatsapp etc. Frankly, if you are embedded in the Facebook, Whatsapp ecosystem, you don't have a way out as a normie. Even if you are technically capable, good luck publishing your custom Mattermost build for iOS.
Meta has a significant amount of investment in hardware, originally due to Metaverse. The way to monetize that investment is inference and training. That's a do or die decision for Meta. Meta isn't releasing open-weight models because they are "good".
Meta is releasing open-weight models for the same reason Alibaba, NVIDIA or IBM does. Or Google releases Gemma.
There's no "good" or "bad" - the moment Alibaba, NVIDIA, IBM or Google's objective functions change, "Do no evil" will quickly morph into "Do as much evil as necessary without the costs of getting caught exceeding E(outcome)"
[–] SoftTalker 2 days ago
Metaverse was 4-5 years ago already wasn't it? That hardware is verging on obsolete.
[–] jnaina 2 days ago
[–] everfrustrated 2 days ago
[–] sheepscreek 2 days ago
I don’t condone the use of pirated content for training. But anything that was bought is above the board as far as I’m concerned. Can let the lawyers fight out the minutia and inevitable licensing specifics after the fact (book publishers are hawks).
Fun fact, did you know that every library in the world has an independent contract with every major book publisher?
In cases I am familiar with, they added a condition that a physical book can only be lent X times. After that, the library must purchase a new copy (even if the original copy is in pristine condition). Yeah, hawks.
[–] djtango 2 days ago
[–] marginalx 2 days ago
[–] bilalq 1 day ago
Public datasets that are liberal with licensed access is one thing, but the best frontier labs clearly went well beyond that.
[–] kps 2 days ago
[–] lnkdinsuxs 1 day ago
|----------------|------------------------------:|--------------------:|
| United States | 850,000 | 750,000–950,000 |
| India | 115,000 | 100,000–125,000 |
| United Kingdom | 68,000 | 55,000–75,000 |
| Canada | 40,000 | 30,000–45,000 |
| Germany | 36,000 | 30,000–40,000 |
| Spain | 27,000 | 23,000–30,000 |
| France | 23,000 | 19,000–25,000 |
| Italy | 17,000 | 14,000–19,000 |
| Poland | 17,000 | 14,000–19,000 |
| Japan | 13,000 | 11,000–16,000 |
| Mexico | 13,000 | 10,000–15,000 |
| Australia | 6,000 | 4,500–8,500 |
| Ireland | 6,000 | 5,500–6,500 |
| Singapore | 2,400 | 2,000–2,500 |
That's a lot of "nobody"
Not an employee, just have a "shit ton" of Amazon stock that has been beating inflation very well. The last few quarters of volatility has allowed me to buy and sell, often fully covering my monthly expenses. I'm very greatful for that. Far from a company "nobody" wants to work for. You have a better performing company than Amazon to recommend that I can use instead? I'm all ears and I'll even give you a kickback for your time!
[–] pixelstack 1 day ago
[–] oxymoron 19 hours ago
[–] red-iron-pine 1 day ago
or are they warehouse and package monkeys and logistics?
800k warehouse workers doesn't mean shit w/r/t AI development
[–] fellowniusmonk 2 days ago
I could be wrong because I haven't paid much attention but Amazon has just fast followed everyone else innovation for a awhile so it's in like one ecosystem yeah?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just haven't thought about aws as having any innovation for a while and I always figured it was because ruthless companies that churn through people as disposable commodities generally don't do tech innovation.
I'm talking on the AWS side, on the logistics side they clearly are doing insane things on supply chain perf optimization.
[–] cyberax 2 days ago
A lot of innovation at AWS is invisible on the outside. They pioneered hyperscale datacenters with publicly accessible capacity, software-defined networks, secure VMs, and so on.
> I'm not trying to be snarky, I just haven't thought about aws as having any innovation for a while and I always figured it was because ruthless companies that churn through people as disposable commodities generally don't do tech innovation.
I worked at AWS before COVID. It was really a varied experience, but it was not _bad_ overall. We prided ourselves on making sure our APIs are solid, stable, and backwards compatible. When we had to make a backwards-incompatible change, we actually contacted every affected customer and ensured that their workflows wouldn't be broken.
[–] fellowniusmonk 2 days ago
[–] torginus 2 days ago
Generally speaking, on AWS you can buy compute, storage, network and other basic 'goods' and just like a supermarket where you can get either flour and eggs, a cake mix or a ready-made cake, AWS is willing to serve it to you in various levels of ready-ness, and you can start at the level you want, and build your own layers on top if you don't like AWS's solutions.
And AWS's solutions are generally built like that as well, there's no magic to Lambda or Fargate or EKS, its just they run the same EC2s, but with some proprietary magic that lifts some complexity from your shoulders, at the cost of generally some markup, and loss of some otherwise desirable features.
But the core thing is that AWS's offerings are generally solid, so as AI evolves and companies become more willing to take on more complexity, they will move to lower level services, but not necessarily out of AWS itself.
[–] curt15 2 days ago
[–] saucymew 2 days ago
They're a good data point on where the robotics labor frontier is.
[–] sznio 2 days ago
like pee bottles.
[–] paxy 2 days ago
[–] killingtime74 2 days ago
[–] number6 2 days ago
00000010: 626f 74
[–] blobbers 2 days ago
[–] nobleach 2 days ago
[–] Analemma_ 2 days ago
[–] nobleach 2 days ago
[–] nfRfqX5n 2 days ago
[–] happymellon 2 days ago
[–] yunwal 1 day ago
[–] Ancalagon 2 days ago
Amazons interviews were so formulaic and it’s interviewers so robotic it was almost sickening.
[–] zmgsabst 2 days ago
HR swore it wasn’t on purpose and I was somehow measuring pay “wrong” by looking at money in my pocket over time; but knowing their HR, I’m sure the valleys in transition from signing bonus to vesting are intentional.
[–] evanwolf 2 days ago
[–] zmgsabst 1 day ago
That’s because people are complicated and do things for many reasons, so people quitting when we cut their pay might not tell us they’re impatient.
I suspect the intent is what you say, but I don’t think the outcome is.
[–] bradknowles 2 days ago
Human experience means nothing. Anything that does have meaning gets encoded in the system for the mindless humans to implement.
That’s my take on the view from the top, based on my time working at AWS.
[–] shiroonandon 2 days ago
.. and then got let go at 22 months in favour of the AI budget.
Gotta respect the hustle.
[–] woah 2 days ago