Be careful you're not confusing the costs of training an LLM and the spending from each firm. Much of that spending is on expanding access to older LLMs, building new infrastructure, and other costs.
That’s a fair criticism of my method, however model training costs are a significant cost centre for the labs. Modelling from there instead of from total expenditure only adds 2-3 years before model training costs are larger than the entire global economy.
These people remind me of the people in the late 19th century who were scared of electricity because they thought it could remove all the air from rooms and suffocate people.
I wonder why co-ops are so comparatively rare in the US, even though everybody seems to like them (customers and employees).
It could just be tradition and the effects of history. But then why did US history create more shareholder corps while European history created more co-ops?
It could be that US investors are less willing to invest in co-ops. But then, why? Is there something about them that makes them less competitive? Why are they ostensibly worse in the US than in Europe?
>It could be that US investors are less willing to invest in co-ops. But then, why? Is there something about them that makes them less competitive?
My, admittedly uninformed, guess would be it has to do with 1) there are more worker protections in the EU than in the US and 2) Co-ops tend to pay employees better wages, have better benefits, etc.
Shareholder corps will try to drive down their labor costs as much as possible. Walmart goes so far as providing advice to how it's employees can best apply for food stamps, all the while keeping them under the 32hr/week threshold that would require them to receive benefits. This can provide a price advantage against co-ops who are not running these same practices. It the EU the labor protection laws are better so the potential difference of labor cost is diminished between sharecorp and co-op.
Co-ops are of course worse for investors. There are no voting stock in co-ops, so the stockholders can't squeeze maximum profits off workers and consumers.
Europe had very strong socialist/non-capitalist political movements in the 19th century. Co-ops were seen as one alternative to capitalism, and were a huge movement.
For example in Finland the largest bank and largest retail chain are (consumer) co-ops, and in general co-ops are big players in the economy.
My reason for asking that question in the first place is that 'investor' isn't a role I associate with a worker-owned enterprise. The workers are the owners are the investors, so the statement reads as invalid to my mind.
Big-government is also an aspect. Both the federal and state governments in the US have a tendency to form wholly-owned subsidiaries to conduct businesses that could otherwise be run by co-ops.
I guess it's because American culture is more focused on property and ownership.
The co-op movement arose as a reaction to industrialization and capitalism, which threatened many workers. You could understand it as capitalism based on membership rather than ownership, or as a third way that's neither capitalism nor socialism. But just like socialism never really took root in the US, other alternatives to capitalism didn't fare that well either.
Worker co-ops are quite concretely socialist in the sense that the workers control their means of production. Of course when embedded in largely capitalist economy, e.g. banks do still have often de-facto control over them.
Or you could say that they are co-owner of their means of production. So, as business owners, are they actually the ultimate capitalists in disguise? :-)
Business owner who doesn't have employees is not really a capitalist, but a self-employed worker. At least if they do some practical labor instead of e.g. investing.
In general, self-employment is quite a different thing from owning of means of production that other people work.
co-ops existed well before industrialization, as guilds of artisans. Guilds were quite protective of their markets and IPs. You had to inherit the menbership or pay a hefty sum to enter the guilds.
They were oligarchic rather than democratic: only masters were full members. They were monopolies rather than competing in the market: you had to be a member of the relevant guild if you wanted to do business. And they were not businesses: each master ran their own business instead of working for the guild.
