Tyler Cowen

To the extent it's about algorithmic advances and you don't need as much brute force compute, that at least possibly is a plus for the United States.

To the extent it's about algorithmic advances and you don't need as much brute force compute, that at least possibly is a plus for the United States.

To the extent it's about algorithmic advances and you don't need as much brute force compute, that at least possibly is a plus for the United States.

Keep in mind, scale may still win out in China. So the major Chinese tech companies, say ByteDance, they all have their own AI models. No one's talking about them because of the Matthew effect.

Keep in mind, scale may still win out in China. So the major Chinese tech companies, say ByteDance, they all have their own AI models. No one's talking about them because of the Matthew effect.

Keep in mind, scale may still win out in China. So the major Chinese tech companies, say ByteDance, they all have their own AI models. No one's talking about them because of the Matthew effect.

Well, once people start talking about something, everyone keeps on talking about it, right? It's like the Barry Weiss effect, we could call it. It's so crazy. But it's true. So the other Chinese models could win out. Keep in mind, the deep-seek people, they're not in with the Chinese state. It seems the CCP was as surprised as anyone. They're not part of the crony capitalist machine.

Well, once people start talking about something, everyone keeps on talking about it, right? It's like the Barry Weiss effect, we could call it. It's so crazy. But it's true. So the other Chinese models could win out. Keep in mind, the deep-seek people, they're not in with the Chinese state. It seems the CCP was as surprised as anyone. They're not part of the crony capitalist machine.

Well, once people start talking about something, everyone keeps on talking about it, right? It's like the Barry Weiss effect, we could call it. It's so crazy. But it's true. So the other Chinese models could win out. Keep in mind, the deep-seek people, they're not in with the Chinese state. It seems the CCP was as surprised as anyone. They're not part of the crony capitalist machine.

Politically, they could be the result of a clampdown. So I wouldn't necessarily bet against the larger Chinese companies because the communist system is set up to favor insiders.

Politically, they could be the result of a clampdown. So I wouldn't necessarily bet against the larger Chinese companies because the communist system is set up to favor insiders.

Politically, they could be the result of a clampdown. So I wouldn't necessarily bet against the larger Chinese companies because the communist system is set up to favor insiders.

DeepSeek is more cool. And keep in mind, O1 Pro costs $200 a month. And it writes in a very objective style, which is good for scholarship, good for objectivity, but it's not as fun to play with for most people as DeepSeq. And so many of the advantages of O1 Pro, they're so sophisticated. Like, say, you could beat me in an economics test, but most people don't even see that difference.

DeepSeek is more cool. And keep in mind, O1 Pro costs $200 a month. And it writes in a very objective style, which is good for scholarship, good for objectivity, but it's not as fun to play with for most people as DeepSeq. And so many of the advantages of O1 Pro, they're so sophisticated. Like, say, you could beat me in an economics test, but most people don't even see that difference.

DeepSeek is more cool. And keep in mind, O1 Pro costs $200 a month. And it writes in a very objective style, which is good for scholarship, good for objectivity, but it's not as fun to play with for most people as DeepSeq. And so many of the advantages of O1 Pro, they're so sophisticated. Like, say, you could beat me in an economics test, but most people don't even see that difference.

So it doesn't appear smarter for most uses, even though it's clearly the better product.

So it doesn't appear smarter for most uses, even though it's clearly the better product.

So it doesn't appear smarter for most uses, even though it's clearly the better product.

I think a lot of it is a tone thing. The reinforcement learning, less was applied to it, so it slips more easily into different persona and characters. That's what most people want from their large language models, not better expertise than Tyler Cowen at economics.

I think a lot of it is a tone thing. The reinforcement learning, less was applied to it, so it slips more easily into different persona and characters. That's what most people want from their large language models, not better expertise than Tyler Cowen at economics.