201–210 of 425 posts
”The company reports over 900 million weekly active users of ChatGPT, though only about 50 million of those are paid subscribers.” With so many free models available the ai companies are going to struggle to convert active free users to paid.
Is this surprising to anyone? I thought that was a given. I'm getting de-facto unlimited use of a model more expensive than Opus 4.8 for $20 a month.
Would love to hear some details on that one...
Or was that a typo and you meant the $200/mo plan instead maybe? That one I could believe, assuming no or frugal subagent use that is.
I'm a simple guy and I don't understand the "sales and marketing" cost. I don't like these products. I have several negative opinions on them. To the extent they work and there is a customer base what marketing could you /possibly/ be engaged in? Doesn't the product sort of market itself? Or another way is this a product that you can market to expand your MAUs? It's so polarizing I can't imagine how that $5.7B is bei…
I'm really curious about something: how far will you go to support AI? Clearly they'll need to monetize things further, would you still use [whatever AI you are paying for] if the price was doubled? Tripled? Where would you stop and would you stop using AI altogether or would you look at competitors?
If AI allows me to cut my time to do something in half on average or allows me to do 2x more it would be worth it to pay up to what my monthly income was before assuming my income scaled with my output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re saying if you cut all the cost centers a company would only have profit centers? If you ignore all the losses you’ll only have profits?
It's more like once you figure out how to make a really good lamp then producing lots of lamps will be profitable. But the lamps are currently suboptimal so we'll be in the red until that time.
”The company reports over 900 million weekly active users of ChatGPT, though only about 50 million of those are paid subscribers.” With so many free models available the ai companies are going to struggle to convert active free users to paid.
None of the free models offer anything even remotely close to the output you can get on a relatively inexpensive model. I think that AI is going to become just another utility people pay to stay relevant. Same as their internet, electricity or gas.
Is this surprising to anyone? I thought that was a given. I'm getting de-facto unlimited use of a model more expensive than Opus 4.8 for $20 a month.
I feel like I have a different $20 plan than everyone else. I have no problem hitting my 5 hour and weekly limits. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great deal compared to API pricing, but it’s a far cry from “unlimited”.
Unless we are genuinely pushing to find AGI, at which point nothing matters, LLMs in their current form don't replace knowledge workers but are an effective force multiplier. How good is enough?
For instance, I pay about $1-2 a month for DeepSeek. It's not as sophisticated as Claude, but it still doubles my productivity as a SWE.
If Fable comes out and demands 50x the price of DeepSeek in order for Anthropic to make a profit on it, how much more productive would I be compared to my personal experience + DeepSeek? 3x? 50x?
Is it cost effective for a business to hire someone without SWE experience + Fable verses hiring someone with SWE experience and DeepSeek? When does R&D hit diminishing returns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re saying if you cut all the cost centers a company would only have profit centers? If you ignore all the losses you’ll only have profits?
It's more like once you figure out how to make a really good lamp then producing lots of lamps will be profitable. But the lamps are currently suboptimal so we'll be in the red until that time.
You're stuck racing against your competitors with the distinct possibility that your R&D costs will outgrow the market demand, and you can't stop because otherwise your customers will stop investing in your dead end tech and switch.