[Arkhaine_kupo]

> Add regulation/enforcement to the big companies and you often shut out the smaller ones following.

That is the case, any regulation increases the cost to enter a market.

But in this case, its irrelevant because the moat of cost to enter is already unfathomable and secondly, they are not adding regulation but fining them for committing a crime.

So yeah, adding that every food compnay needs 3 health inspectors that they pay for would benefit coca cola over you mom and pop bakery. But telling someone they cannot start a Space agency with money laundered from ransom and drug sales payments would not affect much the competition markets

[vovavili]

>the moat of cost to enter is already unfathomable

At the moment.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

There are multiple ways to respond to that and I will try and summarise them.

Current believe is that its a "winner takes all market", so companies are acting rationally and using Brute Force compute to get there first. Training costs scale linearly, which means the moat is directly related to compute cost

There are theories that they are wasting 90% of training costs and there are more efficient ways to do it than throw compute at the problem. But if thats the case then chances are the market is not "winner takes all". Which then means the valuation of the ENTIRE market is overvalued.

Basically the only way for the assertion "at the moment" to be true is if the market is a bubble, else if the current theory of winner takes all market means a monopoly will make it so that cost isnt even the worst of the moats to enter.