It’s incredible how polarizing the AI rush is. I keep the perspective that the technology is an absolute step change but I have no idea where the cards will fall. I take a lot of issue with these style of articles. I get a sense that the authors are being overly defensive. The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. What’s unclear is how R&D and capex fit into the…
> The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. > For the data center build outs, demand for tokens is still exceeding supply. Can you provide any numbers for this?
How the AI Bubble Bursts
101–110 of 557 posts
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#102It’s incredible how polarizing the AI rush is. I keep the perspective that the technology is an absolute step change but I have no idea where the cards will fall. I take a lot of issue with these style of articles. I get a sense that the authors are being overly defensive. The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. What’s unclear is how R&D and capex fit into the…
> The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today How can you possibly say that? Everyone knows that's not the case, these companies are losing money every day selling tokens. Revenue is not the same thing as profit.
Yep, especially if we look at what happened just last week, both Google and Anthropic have dropped how much you get out of your existing plans.
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#103Hopefully soon. My new unwords are f.e. "agentic".
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#104AI is shit. I just want this to be over. Can we move on
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#105> They lose a big customer for their cloud services. Even worse considering that now, using the AI they helped fund, everyone can compete with their sub-par products. GitHub is a good candidate for disruption, and that’d be just the start. Look, I'm a Microsoft hater like the rest of us, but calling Microsoft's products sub-par discredits the author a good bit. I invite anyone who thinks this to try and compete with…
You can have an opinion about a tool as a user, without ever having ability to create such a tool yourself, that's literally what every tech and auto reviewer does.
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#106It's a winner-takes-all market and everyone wants to be the next Google and not the next Lycos or AskJeeves etc. It'd be interesting to see what they spend all the money on though as we seem to be hitting diminishing returns and I'm not sure if the typical enterprise user really cares about small improvements on benchmarks. It seems like it'd probably be better to spend all that on marketing, free trials, exclusivity…
It’s absolutely not winner take all. LLMs have become a commodity and the cost of switching models is essentially nil.
Even if ChatGPT has brand recognition amongst lay people, your grandparents aren’t the ones shelling out $200/mo for a Claude code subscription and paying for extra Opus tokens on top of that. Anthropic’s revenue is now neck and neck with OpenAI, but if tomorrow they increased the price of Opus by 5x without increasing its capabilities, many would switch to Gemini, GPT 5.4, Cursor, or any cheap Chinese model. In fact I know many engineers that have multiple subscriptions active and switch when they hit the rate limits of one, precisely the tools are so interchangeable.
At some point it could even become cheaper to just buy 8x H100s and host Qwen/Deepseek/Kimi/etc yourself if you’re one of those companies paying $3k/mo per engineers in tokens.
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#107> How this affects you? > checks list ... nope, nothing will either directly or indirectly affect me. Let it happen sooner, rather than later, and unleash the mobs at the tech bros that set the world on course to make everybody's life more miserable. We'll still be here to get the scrapped RAM and GPUs to train and infere local models thank you very much.
The current best models are already very capable of disrupting the job of millions of people. I don’t think a scenario where we just go back to pre-Claude Code exists and I’m sure the same models can be tuned for much of other white collar work at similar capability
might be: there is too much busy work as it is, but we need people to work in order to make money in order to spend it in order to keep the circus from going under. It's the circle of life
Let me remind you that you are not paying the full price for the service and all the value of those company is out of thin air. More or less the premise of the article. *when* you will be asked the real price, we'll see if the company will prefer a human or a bot it can't pass blame to
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#108It’s incredible how polarizing the AI rush is. I keep the perspective that the technology is an absolute step change but I have no idea where the cards will fall. I take a lot of issue with these style of articles. I get a sense that the authors are being overly defensive. The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. What’s unclear is how R&D and capex fit into the…
> The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. > For the data center build outs, demand for tokens is still exceeding supply. Can you provide any numbers for this?
Check the token prices for open weight LLMs at various independent inference providers.
That gives you a very good estimate of "how much can you serve the tokens of a model of the size N for while making a profit".
Now, keep in mind: Kimi K2.5 is 1T MoE. Today's frontier LLMs are in the 1T to 5T range, also MoE. Make an estimate. Compare that estimate with the actual frontier lab prices.
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#109It’s incredible how polarizing the AI rush is. I keep the perspective that the technology is an absolute step change but I have no idea where the cards will fall. I take a lot of issue with these style of articles. I get a sense that the authors are being overly defensive. The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable today and that’s been true for at least a year. What’s unclear is how R&D and capex fit into the…
> The cost to serve tokens is absolutely profitable Can you explain why you know better than the analyst at Cursor cited in this article?
Can you cite your source of an analyst at Cursor. I read the article and looking through the boatload of links but struggled to find what you are referring to. Ty
Re: How the AI Bubble Bursts
#110This article tries to build upon a lot of half-truths or incorrect facts, like this: > OpenAI is struggling to monetize. They turned to showing ads in ChatGPT, The ads aren’t going into your paid plans (except maybe a highly discounted tier, depending on the market). The ads are a play to offer a free version. Having an ad-supported free tier isn’t new. The discussion about being unprofitable also repeats the reducti…
> The ads aren’t going into your paid plans (except maybe a highly discounted tier, depending on the market). The ads are a play to offer a free version. Having an ad-supported free tier isn’t new. Sounds like it is new for ChatGPT though. That's also how it started with TV and Youtube, first on the free tier then expanding to the paid ones.
YouTube doesn't show ads on the paid plan. If you're talking about sponsored segments those would be impossible to moderate, and YouTube does offer easy skipping of those.