Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI is slowing down

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 820 posts

Re: AI is slowing down

#541

Post by simianwords »

oblio wrote: post #537
simianwords wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until inference becomes much cheaper these companies cannot be profitable. Some mega-players will pay the API token price, but most will not. This is often repeated but comes from ignorance mostly. You have * zero * reason to believe inference is costly other than just vibes. If you go by data and intuitions - the margins are high. This kind of thinking really reinforces my belief that people have no idea and are u…

> You have * zero * reason to believe inference is costly other than just vibes. If you go by data and intuitions - the margins are high. 1. What data? 2. Intuitions = vibes. Vibes are bad when used against you, but good when used in your favor. Come on :-)))

I have the data here and intuition https://simianwords.bearblog.dev/conclusive-proofs-that-llm-...

But if you don't believe me, lets have a bet based on what the IPO filings show?

Re: AI is slowing down

#543

Post by petesergeant »

dsign wrote: post #154

The way I see it, AI is going to change the world radically. It could be for the worse, the better, or a mix of both, but in my mind there's no doubt. We are only five or six years into the leap LLMs represent. For reference, radio waves were discovered in 1886, Marconi used them for communications in 1895, and while telephone and radio coexisted for many decades, it wasn't until the 1995 that mobile phones and wirel…

> For example, LLMs to drive NPC dialog and world mechanics in games is not a thing due to cost.

I have deployed LLM-based NPCs in production for a reasonably popular game (100k DAU), so this is news to me.

Re: AI is slowing down

#544

Post by lavezzi »

lz400 wrote: post #426
Grombobulous wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He provided a lot of quantitative analysis in this article. Perhaps an example or two you think these numbers are off-base could help bolster this point? I think the most compelling part of the article is that these numbers point to a situation where the level of investment required seems unsustainably high by plain dollars. You don’t really have to agree with the author to see how it plays out. OpenAI and SpaceX and…

I guess what I'm saying is that I won't look at his numbers since he's an unreliable source from my point of view and there's a chance that he's going to try to deceive me and it's a waste of time for me to listen to him. I do have other sources of information and I probably agree in general that AI companies are doing pretty shady financial shenanigans. I even think it's possible that openai is in real trouble. But…

> I guess what I'm saying is that I won't look at his numbers since he's an unreliable source from my point of view and there's a chance that he's going to try to deceive me and it's a waste of time for me to listen to him.

But he's linking out to sources

Re: AI is slowing down

#545

Post by ido »

zymhan wrote: post #497
ido wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why only US wages rather than global wages? The US is the biggest economy but it’s still only a minority of the global economy.

Just consider the math there for a second, when you factor in the average US wage.

But we know global GDP per capita (a proxy to wages)- the US represent about 25% of total global GDP (a metric which accounts for US wages being higher than average). I’m not being contrarian, I genuinely think the addressable market is the global market and not just the US (and by a wide margin) and as such thats the real potential of anthropic/openai/et al.

Re: AI is slowing down

#546

Post by bawolff »

overgard wrote: post #524
bawolff wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a grift when everyone knows? Its not like they are keeping their financials secret. Heck, the main AI companies aren't even public yet, so its largely sophisticated investors getting "grifted". Normally a grift involves tricking someone. The AI situation seems more like a bunch of investors knowingly investing in something very speculative. If they lose their money, while that is the nature of speculativ…

Elon Musk just got the rules of the NASDAQ changed so he can more or less force index funds to buy his shell company and take money from people's 401k. Feels very grifty to me.

That is a very misleading summary of what happened.

Re: AI is slowing down

#547

Post by camillomiller »

dofm wrote: post #239

Today Apple launched its revamped AI offering. Judging by several reports, Apple pays Google a mere billion dollars a year to operate it. Essentially just licensing the IP. Google are (allegedly) happy to turn over the right to operate and distill their models for only a billion a year. Consumer revenue is only a smallish share of the puzzle, but still: If you are a consumer and you have a Mac or an iPhone, what do y…

This this this 1000 times. It’s not that the tech ain’t great, but it’s just not marketable to the levels these scammers are screaming about.

Re: AI is slowing down

#548

Post by Kiro »

1attice wrote: post #415
Jtarii wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shows that the author has a strong negative emotional reaction towards AI which likely influences his opinions and impartiality. He is preaching to the choir, if you already hate AI you will love the article, if you don't hate AI already you will find the article insufferable.

Well, we don't have to speculate as to whether there is some sort of emotional taint on Zitron's thinking; it's shot through. But again, that does nothing to damage or offset _the argument_, which is available for your inspection and consideration, and you, as a thinking person, are handily capable of vetting. :) There is no need to use a heuristic; you have the thing itself.

It absolutely damages the argument. Not sure why you think your question is a gotcha.

Re: AI is slowing down

#549

Post by rob74 »

ido wrote: post #545
zymhan wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just consider the math there for a second, when you factor in the average US wage.

But we know global GDP per capita (a proxy to wages)- the US represent about 25% of total global GDP (a metric which accounts for US wages being higher than average). I’m not being contrarian, I genuinely think the addressable market is the global market and not just the US (and by a wide margin) and as such thats the real potential of anthropic/openai/et al.

You're partly right. But OTOH, China is (pretty successfully) developing its own AI solutions, and even the (former?) US allies in Europe, America and Asia have become painfully aware that they are dependent on a hostile US administration and tech companies cozying up to that administration, and will be wary of further deepening this dependency, so they will also prefer home-grown solutions. So the addressable market for US companies is much smaller than the global market, even in countries that could theoretically afford Anthropic's and OpenAI's prices.

Re: AI is slowing down

#550

Post by dofm »

HerbManic wrote: post #405
squidsoup wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter under Capitalist Realism, the banks were bailed out, the AI companies will be bailed out, and you will pay for it. There is no alternative.

I'm not sure if they would be bailed out. The government tends to help with bank bailouts as they are essentially the hemoglobin of the economy, I see this being more like the dot-com bubble were they will just let it fall and have the bigger more entrenched player pickup the scraps for cents on the dollar.

According to NOTUS, Altman himself seems to have sold Trump on the idea that the USA should own a chunk of OpenAI, and despite their potential IPO, OpenAI have recently followed up on the idea.

Owning a chunk is pretty directly how more than one country injected confidence into their at-risk banks; it’s certainly how it was done in the UK.

Post reply on HN