> only one can win

Why? I mean, if you assume that the moment some threshold of intelligence is reached it will suddenly explode and self-improve at a pace no one would be able to ever catch up with, then yes probably only one can win. But I think it’s more sci-fi than reality which is often more nuanced and boring.

And that one can only win if it convinces leaders to regulate AI so that opensource models don't get good enough.

What does it even mean to "win the AI race" ?

Right now there are many providers providing different tradeoffs, for different usages.

Would "winning" mean releasing an all-purpose better model that will outperform every other companies for all kind of tasks ? Something like AGI but cost effective ?

Or is it winning the consumer-side AI race ? Like making a kind of "super personal AI assistant" the likes you would see in movies and TVs ?

I'm not arguing, I am just struggling to understand what it usually means when somebody says that, it's not like competitors will go bankrupt the second OpenAI/Anthropic/Whatever does something specific.

> good enough" model for the cost of electricity

This already exists, in several tiers, depending on what you can afford to run (in terms of VRAM).

Deepseek V Flash 0731 is already good enough for many things.

And winning the AI race means being the biggest loser. LLMs aren't profitable.

Another outcome is that none win.