I guess I mean that since you can’t turn your product idea into a company anymore
You can, it is just that we are obviously on the right side of the S-curve for computer technology adoption. There may be improvements, but they are going to be far more minor to the overall experience and cost a lot more to make. So, it isn’t worth it either for the big five or for the tons of startup companies.
I mean look at LLMs. It’s the one tech that seems like it holds enough promise that it could still be made. And all the companies that made LLMs in the US have been promptly acquired by the same five companies.
We may be on the right side of one S-curve, but are on the left side of some other S-curves, yet those companies don’t get started and funded either. Biotech jobs are few and far between despite just having figured out how to do cheap unlimited gene editing.
How are chatbots more important technology than the cure to Alzheimer’s?
Silicon Valley’s focus isn’t biotech. I wouldn’t expect Meta to release a drug requiring FDA approval.
But that’s exactly my point! Where is the money funding innovation outside Silicon Valley and Big Tech?
BTW some of biotech’s biggest recent breakthroughs were made by Google, which is perverse in itself. The only way to pay for those breakthroughs were through Big Tech, and they only exist at the good graces of Google. If Google decided not to spend money on it, they wouldn’t have happened.
What I’m saying is that if you have a prospective cure to Alzheimers and want to get it funded by VC money, they won’t fund it because it’s not AI. If you manage to get it funded and it’s a breakthrough however, a megacorp will find you first with an acquisition offer, then if you refuse, a VC funded alternative that can afford to run you out of business.
This is stifling innovation and keeping smart people underemployed.
You can, it is just that we are obviously on the right side of the S-curve for computer technology adoption. There may be improvements, but they are going to be far more minor to the overall experience and cost a lot more to make. So, it isn’t worth it either for the big five or for the tons of startup companies.
I mean look at LLMs. It’s the one tech that seems like it holds enough promise that it could still be made. And all the companies that made LLMs in the US have been promptly acquired by the same five companies.
We may be on the right side of one S-curve, but are on the left side of some other S-curves, yet those companies don’t get started and funded either. Biotech jobs are few and far between despite just having figured out how to do cheap unlimited gene editing.
How are chatbots more important technology than the cure to Alzheimer’s?
LLM’s are really the only thing tech has left, while there were several different kinds of computer technology with investing in decades ago.
Silicon Valley’s focus isn’t biotech. I wouldn’t expect Meta to release a drug requiring FDA approval.
But that’s exactly my point! Where is the money funding innovation outside Silicon Valley and Big Tech?
BTW some of biotech’s biggest recent breakthroughs were made by Google, which is perverse in itself. The only way to pay for those breakthroughs were through Big Tech, and they only exist at the good graces of Google. If Google decided not to spend money on it, they wouldn’t have happened.
What I’m saying is that if you have a prospective cure to Alzheimers and want to get it funded by VC money, they won’t fund it because it’s not AI. If you manage to get it funded and it’s a breakthrough however, a megacorp will find you first with an acquisition offer, then if you refuse, a VC funded alternative that can afford to run you out of business.
This is stifling innovation and keeping smart people underemployed.