Please tell us what you believe this is telling us. You’ve left it up to interpretation and this feels more like a Reddit quality comment than one that the hackernews community deserves.
In my opinion, it’s telling us that competition in the LLM space is accelerating and it’s anybody’s game right now. It’s important enough of a space that companies are willing to pay for exposure and squeeze out the competition.
I’ve interpreted your comment as “llm has no value so the providers are paying for people to use it”, which is, naive at best
> “llm has no value so the providers are paying for people to use it”,
I feel like for that to have been even possible to understand from that comment, then "not the other way around" couldn't have been there. If authors opinion was that LLMs has no value, why'd Telegram pay to use Grok?
Maybe I'm just used to reading between the lines, but I think parents comment strike a fine balance between saying too much, saying enough and saying too little. It's understandable what they mean, if you read the full comment. Not everything has to be explicitly spelled out for the lowest common denominator.
They pretty much did say “not the other way around” with
“If these offerings were so great wouldn't we all be clamoring for it?”
The entire question is flawed. It’s a rhetorical question and the implication is “these offerings are not so great and we aren’t clamoring for it”.
I’d argue we are clamoring for it, and we have a lot of options here and they are all great options.
But since the rhetorical question is flawed you now have nothing to anchor on to know exactly what OP meant because if they are flawed here that means whatever they meant in the first half of the comment is also likely flawed.
Maybe you’re not as good at reading between the lines, or the line in general, as much as you think you are and you’re actually the LCD that would be served by a deeper comment.
The whole point of the comment is that it is “telling” of something but the commenter at this point could come back and basically go in any direction. That’s an indication the comment is not saying enough…
That's an interesting way of looking at it thanks for sharing. In that way it's similar to Google paying to be the default search engine in Firefox or on iOS. They _did_ have the best search engine at the time but they still paid platforms to have it embedded as a default option.
In my opinion, it’s telling us that competition in the LLM space is accelerating and it’s anybody’s game right now. It’s important enough of a space that companies are willing to pay for exposure and squeeze out the competition.
I’ve interpreted your comment as “llm has no value so the providers are paying for people to use it”, which is, naive at best