211–220 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine still saying this after open weight models being released everywhere and the likes of DeepSeek keeping their prices at the lowest possible for more than good enough intelligence that even Microsoft is migrating to deploy DeepSeek's models.
Looking forward to GLM-5.2 in OpenCode. But a lot of other people are going to happily shell out for Opus 4.8 at way higher prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market is pricing in the potential for future revolutionary shifts which seem fairly likely. For instance if there ends up being substantial labor disruption due to LLMs then the economy as we know it is going to end up being reshaped in ways that are difficult to imagine beyond the fact that the LLM providers would likely play a critical role in it. Similarly, SpaceX has already brought the cost of getting thing…
Why should we believe that Starship launch costs will be that cheap when we don't believe Musk's other numbers? Where does that number come from? Has anyone looked into it? It doesn't cover launch costs directly, but here's a bearish take on reusability of the second stage: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-...
[1] - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=72.0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should we believe that Starship launch costs will be that cheap when we don't believe Musk's other numbers? Where does that number come from? Has anyone looked into it? It doesn't cover launch costs directly, but here's a bearish take on reusability of the second stage: https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-...
Yes, it's been extensively analyzed. Space is a massive industry with a huge base of people, disproportionately made up engineers and the like, who love digging through the nitty gritty of pretty much everything. Nasa space flight forums [1] are the analog of hacker news, but for space. That link is just for discussion on Starship, and currently has hundreds of thousands of posts. [1] - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
global gdp is over 100 trillion. Something like 50-60% is paid to labor. If you assume AI takes a good chunk of labor, the market is gigantic. Really really really gigantic.
AI bots don’t buy consumer goods and other services. If people don’t get work they stop buying things. If people don’t buy things, companies don’t make money. If companies don’t make money they won’t buy — or have a reason to buy —- AI companies’ services. You cannot eliminate a significant chunk of labour cost without causing demand collapse. People saying that there is money in eliminating labour costs at that scal…
Like agriculture. That market has grown significantly through time, even though it's shrunk dramatically as a % of GDP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They cannot grow indefinitely when they make a loss on every user. More growth = bigger losses. Current investors should be left holding this shit bag, better them than retirement funds.
They are running 40% margins. Every dollar of inference at the margin is profitable.
So many shills on HN today, feels sponsored.
ArsTechnica has a nice graph showing it https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/leaked-financial-docs-sho... And I believe this is the actual source https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI bots don’t buy consumer goods and other services. If people don’t get work they stop buying things. If people don’t buy things, companies don’t make money. If companies don’t make money they won’t buy — or have a reason to buy —- AI companies’ services. You cannot eliminate a significant chunk of labour cost without causing demand collapse. People saying that there is money in eliminating labour costs at that scal…
I'm not suggesting the people then sit idle. The economy can grow, services can be added, the % done by AI drops, but the raw value of it doesn't. It's just to show that the market is extremely large. Like agriculture. That market has grown significantly through time, even though it's shrunk dramatically as a % of GDP.
AI cannot make money as an alternative to large scale employment, because essentially all the clients of those AI businesses will see demand for their products and services collapse. AI bots don’t go to In-N-Out Burger or Disneyland.
Anything else is fantasy maths, albeit commonplace fantasy in the AI industry at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market is pricing in the potential for future revolutionary shifts which seem fairly likely. For instance if there ends up being substantial labor disruption due to LLMs then the economy as we know it is going to end up being reshaped in ways that are difficult to imagine beyond the fact that the LLM providers would likely play a critical role in it. Similarly, SpaceX has already brought the cost of getting thing…
"""For instance if there ends up being substantial labor disruption due to LLMs" "" .. who are they gonna sell to if people don't even have money to buy? We live in circular economy... everyone's dependent on someone or the other... you take one leg out of this, and the whole thing stops. UBI won't work either because it will lead to runaway inflation and extreme levels of invasive control over people's lives and wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is subsidized by gov contracts. Everyone who has common sense immediately said the real money is Altman getting into the governments pants which is why he and Brockman lobby so hard. You take away those contracts and OpenAI is dead in the water.
Anthropic are apparently making more revenue than OpenAI, and their government contracts have famously been curtailed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"""For instance if there ends up being substantial labor disruption due to LLMs" "" .. who are they gonna sell to if people don't even have money to buy? We live in circular economy... everyone's dependent on someone or the other... you take one leg out of this, and the whole thing stops. UBI won't work either because it will lead to runaway inflation and extreme levels of invasive control over people's lives and wha…
> UBI won't work either because it will lead to [...] extreme levels of invasive control over people's lives and what they can and cannot do I've never heard this before. I thought UBI would be very freeing and without much control. If it is universal then there needs to be no control of who gets it or not. What am I missing?
And in cases where the strain on resources is significant, you could easily see things like efforts to restrict the fertility of the consumption class which would enter into the domain of defacto eugenics. And from all of these sort of issues you're going to see a conflict arise between the two classes, but one holds all the power. It's not going to be pretty. FWIW, a decade ago I was a huge advocate for UBI, but my outlook on the realities of political leadership, and it's probable inescapability, has changed my opinion over time.