161–170 of 296 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference being that AI's marketing has been significantly more prevalent than any early computing efforts.
This seems false to me. Commodore and Apple were blitzing every advertising medium and especially TV ads in the early 1980s.
Andrej Karpathy said that major revolutions like the Internet, smartphones, and AI often don’t show up clearly in GDP statistics, even when they radically change how people work. GDP measures total spending, not productivity or usefulness. These revolutions improved efficiency and quality of life, but GDP mostly continued along its long-term trend. See his interview in Dwarkesh's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watc…
"These revolutions improved efficiency and quality of life" I'm genuinely not sure. We are all computer people in this forum, so it may have improved our lives. But for many people, information technology has lessened the time spent in a given week or year on activities they find meaningful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI in particular doesn't have a high requirement at the consumer side. Everyone already has everything they need to use it. That isn’t actually true though, right now everyone has a hard dependency on a cloud service. That is currently sold to them at deep discount by companies that are losing billions. When the market eventually corrects it’ll be interesting to see how much AI ends up costing. At the very least it…
Is it actually being sold at a steep discount? Anthropic CEO has stated they have high margins on inference, so training is the big cost center.
They're spending more than they're making. For the foreseeable future, saying "we could be profitable if we stopped training" if goofy, because they can't stop. If they do, no one will want to use their product because it will be overtaken by competitors within three months.
I get it that in 10 years all of this might peak and we're gonna be content using old models, but that'll be a very different landscape and Anthropic might not be a part of it anymore if they don't start making money before that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it is tempting to dunk on AI boosters every time an article like this comes out and puts a damper on their sci fi fan fiction fantasies. There's just something about a grown person getting all excited like a child that makes it really satisfying.
You must have a really bleak view on life to think an adult should never get excited like a child. Adult life doesn’t have to be boring drudgery, you know. I mean, it mostly is, but the rare moments of childlike joy and excitement are some of the best parts. As far as the putting a damper on anything, nope it doesn’t. And it never will. The people excited about AI are excited because of the impacts they see on their…
It took 20 years for computers to "add" to the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox
Article refutes itself by saying it's difficult to measure impact on GDP (thus would by this logic have to take a neutral stance on impact of AI)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it actually being sold at a steep discount? Anthropic CEO has stated they have high margins on inference, so training is the big cost center.
> Is it actually being sold at a steep discount? Anthropic CEO has stated they have high margins on inference, so training is the big cost center. They're spending more than they're making. For the foreseeable future, saying "we could be profitable if we stopped training" if goofy, because they can't stop. If they do, no one will want to use their product because it will be overtaken by competitors within three month…
I would personally be happy using gpt 5.3 codex for the foreseeable future, with just improvements in harnesses
IMO we're already at the point where even if these company collapse and the models end up being sold at the cost of inference (no new training), we would be massively ahead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must have a really bleak view on life to think an adult should never get excited like a child. Adult life doesn’t have to be boring drudgery, you know. I mean, it mostly is, but the rare moments of childlike joy and excitement are some of the best parts. As far as the putting a damper on anything, nope it doesn’t. And it never will. The people excited about AI are excited because of the impacts they see on their…
It's not bleak, just more mature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI in particular doesn't have a high requirement at the consumer side. Everyone already has everything they need to use it. That isn’t actually true though, right now everyone has a hard dependency on a cloud service. That is currently sold to them at deep discount by companies that are losing billions. When the market eventually corrects it’ll be interesting to see how much AI ends up costing. At the very least it…
Is it actually being sold at a steep discount? Anthropic CEO has stated they have high margins on inference, so training is the big cost center.
I'm pretty sure that in corpo-speak "inference" excludes the cost of datacenter construction, GPUs and other hardware, manual data cleaning, R&D, administration, etc - basically everything except the power bill for inference.
I have absolutely no problem with companies that run inference only - plenty of them offer open models as a service - they're usefull and their accounting can be believed... but they don't have near $ Trillion valuations and they don't misallocate capital on a vast scale as the frontier models do.
The point of the OP is that closed models don't pay for themselves and, on the scale of the US economy, they provide minuscule economic advantages compared to the enormous investments they consume.