Post #4748114 · Elektrine

2026-09-18 11:18 UTC

I have seen technological dominance disappear before. In 1998, Netscape named me “Partner of the Year.” Netscape appeared to rule the internet. US antitrust records show its browser share falling from roughly 76% in early 1997 to 19% by 2000. The company itself had been acquired by AOL. Where is Netscape today? This is not a prediction that today’s AI leaders will vanish. It is a reminder that technological eternity can be surprisingly short. Market leadership, capital, and cultural inevitability are not the same as durable value. A company can shape an era without owning its destination. That memory makes me skeptical when temporary corporate dominance is used to justify permanent infrastructure, dependency, or public risk. We should govern the transition for society, not build policy around the survival needs of its current leaders. 14/34

Replies (1)

@masek@infosec.exchange 2026-09-18 11:18

Now to inference: using a model after it has been trained. I want to separate the technology from its application, because the discussion is already carrying enough luggage. Technically, two delivery modes matter to me. With AI as a service, a provider operates the model and sells access. This offers convenience, rapid updates, elastic capacity, and often the strongest available capabilities. It also means less control and continuing dependency on prices, policies, and availability. With open-weight AI, the learned parameters can be downloaded and run or adapted elsewhere, including locally. That can offer privacy, control, and portability. Open weights are not necessarily open source, though. Training data, training code, or broad usage rights may still be missing. Neither approach is inherently right. Sadly, the universe has declined to provide one architecture that solves every trade-off. 15/34

Open ##4748113