The implicit assumption here is that the large players may have developed techniques that are more effective than anything your “in-house produced neural networks for a niche corner of image and object recognition that seems to be currently market-leading in its small field.”
While I cannot state whether or not this is true*, some generality hypotheses say it would be, and you cannot as a small player build a general image recognizing model and use it in industry.
Point is your company leadership believes it’s possible that in fact you need to adopt general models from a larger player to compete, or your company fails.
How do any alternatives satisfy their desire? They do not. All valid courses of action lead to the company attempting to integrate cutting edge general models.
In fact the incentive arrows point to adopting the most cutting edge model from the largest AI player, nothing less.
*if the general model merely matched the performance of your in-house model, it’s still likely a better option as it likely would be cheaper to license than maintain your own.
Regarding badness: suppose you continue selling your in house model and the second place competitor adopts the general model.
This is a story that has happened many, many times in tech. Ending is always the same : your company dies, the competition eats your lunch. Failing to adopt is choosing to lose.
I think your question is asking about a choice you do not have.
I think I failed to explain my position correctly. My company dabbles in AI. The leadership is now considering significantly increasing our investment in it, including with major partners. Their models, many of which we have no current offering for, will enrich our offering.
I don’t quite understand your final line, as my question in the original post was
I would like to know if others have been in a similar circumstance, how they considered their actions, and what they ultimately decided to do and why.
I’m saying in this scenario the choices may be to lose on purpose, or to serve the interests of your shareholders.
From the people with significant equity this isn’t a choice.
And like I said, you have the same problem with any tech innovation adoption. If you’re the last farmer to get a tractor, you’ll have lost all the revenue you would have gained over the <adoption period>. And if not having modern equipment caused you to run in the red, well.
The fact that tractor engines would later also be used in battle tanks and bombers isn’t something you can control. Your refusal to adapt just bankrupts your own farm.
Early access to their cutting-edge models.
The implicit assumption here is that the large players may have developed techniques that are more effective than anything your “in-house produced neural networks for a niche corner of image and object recognition that seems to be currently market-leading in its small field.”
While I cannot state whether or not this is true*, some generality hypotheses say it would be, and you cannot as a small player build a general image recognizing model and use it in industry.
Point is your company leadership believes it’s possible that in fact you need to adopt general models from a larger player to compete, or your company fails.
How do any alternatives satisfy their desire? They do not. All valid courses of action lead to the company attempting to integrate cutting edge general models.
In fact the incentive arrows point to adopting the most cutting edge model from the largest AI player, nothing less.
*if the general model merely matched the performance of your in-house model, it’s still likely a better option as it likely would be cheaper to license than maintain your own.
Regarding badness: suppose you continue selling your in house model and the second place competitor adopts the general model.
This is a story that has happened many, many times in tech. Ending is always the same : your company dies, the competition eats your lunch. Failing to adopt is choosing to lose.
I think your question is asking about a choice you do not have.
I think I failed to explain my position correctly. My company dabbles in AI. The leadership is now considering significantly increasing our investment in it, including with major partners. Their models, many of which we have no current offering for, will enrich our offering.
I don’t quite understand your final line, as my question in the original post was
I’m saying in this scenario the choices may be to lose on purpose, or to serve the interests of your shareholders.
From the people with significant equity this isn’t a choice.
And like I said, you have the same problem with any tech innovation adoption. If you’re the last farmer to get a tractor, you’ll have lost all the revenue you would have gained over the <adoption period>. And if not having modern equipment caused you to run in the red, well.
The fact that tractor engines would later also be used in battle tanks and bombers isn’t something you can control. Your refusal to adapt just bankrupts your own farm.