[johnsmith1840]

I bet you the predictions are largely correct but technology doesn't care about funding timelines and egos. It will come in its own time.

It's like trying to make fusion happen only by spending more money. It helps but it doesn't fundamentally solve thr pace of true innovation.

I've been saying for years now that the next AI breakthrough could come from big tech but it also has just a likely chance of comming from a smart kid with a whiteboard.

[slopinthebag]

Well, the predictions are tied to the timelines. If someone predicts that AI will take over writing code sometime in the future I think a lot of people would agree. The pushback comes from suggesting it's current LLMs and that the timeline is months and not decades.

[echelon]

> I've been saying for years now that the next AI breakthrough could come from big tech but it also has just a likely chance of comming from a smart kid with a whiteboard.

It comes from the company best equipped with capital and infra.

If some university invents a new approach, one of the nimble hyperscalers / foundation model companies will gobble it up.

This is why capital is being spent. That is the only thing that matters: positioning to take advantage of the adoption curve.

[johnsmith1840]

Yes scaling is always capitol hungry but the innovation itself is not