aoshifo

Citation needed

How do you think they convince people, esp. CEOs to buy access to their models?

What? The only reason their companies make so much money is BECAUSE they make their predictions about AI replacing every job soon. A couple months ago it seemed is was their ONLY job.

It might be a viable business model, but does not warrant anywhere near these valuations.

Then, I'm sorry to say, you have no spine

What are you trying to say with this? This is absurd.

The outrage has nothing to do with Mullvad itself supporting people with certain opinions or not.

The problem I and many others have, is that if the founder takes our money and gives it to causes that I (edit: or rather we) find reprehensible, we don't want to give them our money anymore. Simple as that.

I will not try to stop you from using Mullvad by any other means than my arguments. Hopefully you understand now where we are coming from and agree. If not, just do your thing.

No I cannot. When my money is being used to sow hatred and division in the world, I will take my money elsewhere. Unfortunately, the list of unusable services is growing by the day. But to me standing up for what I believe in is more important than the convenience of using a good service.

There have been many shitstorms, but whenever I looked at the actual tweets or sources, there was not much actual evidence. More often it showed the founder being a poor communicator, but not right-wing.

But it's a start

I don't see it as a nationalist world view around tech in Europe. There is certainly a push for "sovereignty", but that mostly means sovereign from the US. But European countries are actively working together on this.

> Got it, so every country should focus on having a mediocre-at-best AI strategy by refusing to work together? Surely this will create a better future instead of pooling resources.

Yeah, why is Anthropic making their own mediocre models, if they could just pool their resources with OpenAI, that makes no sense.

I'd say, you are looking at this from the angle of a nerd. For you Elon or Sam are not (primarily) nerds because you know nerdier nerds (what you called very high-profile nerds). But for the general public Elon and Sam are very much the definition of a nerd. They have never heard of any of the high-profile nerds you know.

And that's exactly the argument of the article IMO, that the famous nerds went from well-meaning eccentrics to evil greedy overlords.

Of course old forums had score keeping, maybe not on upvote but number of posts, but still

> Cursor has 1B in enterprise revenue.

That' all well and good and they had astounding growth rates but doesn't mean much. And 1B in ARR is not _that_ much in comparison. Also, reportedly they spend all their revenue and they have no control over the spend-side. The models they use will very likely get much more expensive. All the foundation model companies have a competing product. Cursor has the first mover advantage, but that will only help then so much. There have been plenty companies who grew fast, had huge revenue, but failed in the end, because they never got profitable. That's also in the cards for Cursor, if they don't fundamentally change their business model

Could be I live in a bubble, but I don't use git because of GitHub or with GitHub that much. No doubt, GitHub is/was great for distributing software but I feel we'd still all be using git without GitHub