[dataker]

>AI isn’t like an oil field owned by a handful of people

Sure, it's free to access open-source AI tools.

However, only huge corporations have enough capital to first build these ground-breaking technologies.

Being the first, it becomes almost impossible to compete at a later stage ("Thiel's aim for a monopoly").

[seizethecheese]

The companies that have dominated each new wave of computing have not always been the incumbents. Is building an AI more capital-intensive than Operating Systems or PC hardware? It's feasible that if a powerful AI is created that it will be done on a cloud server by a small team of people.

[nostrademons]

Your observation is true, your conclusion isn't necessarily. AI is different from other areas of computing in that data matters far more than code does. Current legal practice is that the data is owned by the organization that collected it, which means that to collect data on millions of users to train behavioral models, you need to have millions of users. If you have millions of users, you're probably a pretty big company.

[Sven_]

Doesn't matter too much. They will invariably get bought out by whoever is waving a large cheque in their face. All the "deep learning" stuff could have easily spun out startups from academia but look at what has happened instead. Its especially rare these days cause all the big powerhouses(Goog/FB/MS/Amazon/Apple) are highly insecure about when they are going to get disrupted overnight. And since they are all sitting on mountains of cash they can afford to throw highly ridiculous amounts at ppl.

There are very few examples where it doesn't happen. I can only think of Torvalds\Linux and Wikipedia.

[touristtam]

You forget to add political and financial pressure to restrain any other player to enter the same market past a certain financial fresh hold