Ask HN: If the models are so good, why doesn't OpenAI just start 100 companies?

本文为原文前 6,000 字符的节选翻译，完整内容请查看原文。

Title is a bit of an exaggeration but the question is more: if the frontier models are so good, why even sell them as your primary money maker? Couldn’t OpenAI or Anthropic make a lot more money by just starting companies themselves that leverage the models and building their own products? Is selling tokens really the best strategy? Especially with commodification and prices declining wouldn’t that indicate there is more money to be made on the application-side of the models rather than the utility side?

标题虽然有些夸张，但核心问题在于：如果前沿模型真的如此出色，为什么还要将其作为主要的盈利手段？OpenAI 或 Anthropic 是否可以通过自行创办公司、利用这些模型构建产品来赚取更多利润？销售 Token 真的是最佳策略吗？特别是在商品化程度提高、价格不断下降的情况下，这是否意味着在模型的应用端比在工具端能赚到更多的钱？

The sort of obvious answer is the same reason McKinsey hasn’t taken over the Fortune 500 despite consulting and having deep knowledge of the operations of most of those companies. AI is brains. Companies need arms and legs and relationships. The reality is that employees are also mostly not entrepreneurs, same as consultants. There are trillions of company ideas in those tokens, just like there are trillions of shots in the fans head watching the basketball players. Takes years, patience, capital and the right mindset to get to the point to even take the shot.

一个显而易见的答案是：麦肯锡尽管为大多数财富 500 强公司提供咨询并深入了解其运营，却并未接管这些公司，原因是一样的。人工智能是大脑，但公司需要手脚和人脉。现实情况是，员工大多不是企业家，咨询顾问也是如此。那些 Token 里蕴含着数以万亿计的公司创意，就像看篮球比赛的球迷脑海中有着数以万亿计的投篮动作一样。要真正付诸实践，需要多年的耐心、资本和正确的心态。

McKinsey does not offer actual strategical advice, they offer scapegoats and insurance that when shits does hit the fan, the client will not be the one sent to prison. The glossy magazines read by C-suite is the slick marketing part, not the actual product.

麦肯锡并不提供真正的战略建议，他们提供的是替罪羊和保险，确保当事情搞砸时，客户不会是那个被送进监狱的人。高管们阅读的那些精美杂志只是华丽的营销手段，而非真正的产品。

McKinsey has multiple consulting verticals, including mechanical engineering, design, employing real professionals for actual work in addition to their traditional business consulting and advising. I think this comment was just a popularist repetition of discourse from social media. In other words it’s a “tiktok ahh take”.

麦肯锡拥有多个咨询垂直领域，包括机械工程、设计等，除了传统的商业咨询和顾问服务外，他们还聘请真正的专业人士进行实际工作。我认为这个评论只是社交媒体上流行话语的重复。换句话说，这是一种“抖音式”的观点。

I know a lot of people who work or have worked at Accenture. Is that close enough to McKinsey and far enough from social media? Because I have come to a similar conclusion after many long conversations about how the sausage is made. GP is more cynical than I would have put it, but I think it’s directionally correct; it’s an easy way for the C-suite to demonstrate “due diligence” on any decision.

我认识很多在埃森哲工作过或正在工作的人。这是否足够接近麦肯锡，又足够远离社交媒体？因为在多次关于“香肠是如何制造的”（指幕后运作）的长谈后，我得出了类似的结论。前文作者的观点比我表达的更愤世嫉俗，但我认为方向是正确的；对于高管层来说，这是一种展示对任何决策进行“尽职调查”的简单方式。