Live data from Hacker News

It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

stratechery.com

261–270 of 284 posts

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that OpenAI is still operating and the argument that it is completely unsustainable are not two incompatible things.

Wether or not OpenAI is sustainable or not is only a question that can be answered in hindsight. If OpenAI is still around in 10 years, in the same sort of capacity, does OP become retroactively wrong? My point is, you can agree that OpenAI is unsustainable, but it's not clear to me that is a decided fact, rather than an open conjecture. And if someone is making that decision from a place of ego, I have greater reaso…

No, it's a question answerable now. If you're losing twice as much money as you're making, the end of your company is an inescapable fact unless you turn that trend around.

What Zitron points out, correctly, is that there currently exists no narrative beyond wishful thinking which explains how that reversal will manifest.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#262
post #259

I don't like Ed Zitron automatic dismissal of everything AI and the constant profanities in his writing are getting old, and it's usually not very well structured, but that said... I like the perspective he has about the money involved. https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-case-against-generative-ai/ OpenAI needs 1 trillion dollars in next four years just to keep existing. That's more than all currently available capital,…

> OpenAI needs 1 trillion dollars in next four years just to keep existing. That's a mischaracterization: They need that order of investment to meet the demand they forecast. It's unclear what other trajectories look like. Additionally, I don't know who Ed Zitron is but he clearly doesn't follow how infrastructure projects are funded and how OpenAI is doing deals. See for example the AMD deal last week where they see…

ok. maybe I misjudged his writing on that level too and it's also not very informed either.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#263
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I think that helps my point. You can't create "good" doctors out of thin air with money, just "more" doctors, and it takes forever.

Do we really need "good" doctors all of the time? I think the industry is overregulated to restrict the supply of healthcare.

When a simple easy to make mistake will kill me, I'm pretty sure I want to have a good doctor all the time.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lecun pretty much says the same things, as most experts actually. Only the execs and marketing teams keep yapping about AGI

I didn't say anything about AGI. I think AGI is very silly.

The original meaning of AI is what some now call AGI. Some don't choose to follow meaning shifts forced by large companies for advertisement purposes. Same like Full* Self** Driving***.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#265
post #259

I don't like Ed Zitron automatic dismissal of everything AI and the constant profanities in his writing are getting old, and it's usually not very well structured, but that said... I like the perspective he has about the money involved. https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-case-against-generative-ai/ OpenAI needs 1 trillion dollars in next four years just to keep existing. That's more than all currently available capital,…

> OpenAI needs 1 trillion dollars in next four years just to keep existing. That's a mischaracterization: They need that order of investment to meet the demand they forecast. It's unclear what other trajectories look like. Additionally, I don't know who Ed Zitron is but he clearly doesn't follow how infrastructure projects are funded and how OpenAI is doing deals. See for example the AMD deal last week where they see…

I thought the kind of circular financing that OpenAI is criticized for is lending to or investing in its customers.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#266
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I think that helps my point. You can't create "good" doctors out of thin air with money, just "more" doctors, and it takes forever.

Do we really need "good" doctors all of the time? I think the industry is overregulated to restrict the supply of healthcare.

Isn't that gap being filled nowadays with roles like nurse practitioners?

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#267
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure. https://youtu.be/OYlQyPo-L4g From 7th minute, truth about ChatGPT - 2% paid users.

Yeah the conversion rate is poor and its demand is not price inelastic, I would argue for many individuals demand is very price elastic.

Commodification follows innovation.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#268
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I think that helps my point. You can't create "good" doctors out of thin air with money, just "more" doctors, and it takes forever.

Do we really need "good" doctors all of the time? I think the industry is overregulated to restrict the supply of healthcare.

The optimal amount of bad doctors is not zero. But there is a point of "ChatGPT does a better job than this man does, and we're talking GPT-4o, not GPT-5 Pro". In which case we have a problem.

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#269
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is following a very well worn path of writing histrionically about a bubble and making money off it. Point out the obvious that it's a bubble. Throw out a lot of figures supporting it. Get your emotional hooks in (prey on fears of job loss, hatred of corporate mismanagement/execs etc) and charge a subscription for it. I liked an article or two of his but he's basically meatGPTing The Information with cursing.

Are there any better authors out there addressing the situation from the direction of skepticism and finance? If some exist I'd like to go see their output. If few/none exist... are there any conclusions we can draw from the rarity?

There's very few people willing to take on the not-a-bubble position, but I experimented with doing so a few days ago in this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45513814

Re: It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

#270
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America spends $5T on healthcare per year. That is twice as much per capita as our "peer" nations (UK, France, Canada, Germany, etc) and we have poorer outcomes.

We have poorer outcomes because we’ve normalized obesity not because our healthcare is worse.

I have done a lot of research into this area. Obesity and other self inflicted health issues are definitely a factor, but not, by far, the whole picture.

Our cost per service is 2-4x or more, and the larger reliance on specialists creates significant complexity and even more costs. So, we do spend 2x, but we get 1/3 to 1/4 of "care" per dollar. In other words, we get less actual care. And the care is biased to fixing things as opposed to preventing things. And it is also biased to those who are wealthier.

Some of the cost drivers: - Administration is 25% of costs, far less in other countries. Insurance company profits and complex administration with confusing and overlapping methodologies that obfuscate costs and comparisons.

- Capital costs are 25% of costs, far less in other countries. Multiple, private, and overlapping hospitals demand more capital and private capital with its expected returns

- Doctor compensation is 2x to 4x more, nursers 2x. Specialists here get truly rich, not true in other countries.

So, quite a lot of the extra spend is not efficient, and goes to insurers, owners of hospitals, and doctors.

I also have personal experience. To get a simple ultrasound, you are talking about $450 for a primary care visit to get a referral for a $650 specialist to get a $1000 ultrasound ($800 scan plus $200 reading), to get a $650 follow-up visit with the specialist to discuss the results. That is almost $3,000 of actual out of pocket costs to me, with a good insurance plan ($2K per month for a couple), the "claimed" costs were significantly higher. MRI and CT are even higher. Similar for a broken ankle, which cost me over $4000 out of pocket.

I am, relatively speaking, well off compared to average, and was able to do this, but that hurt, and significantly disincentivizes me in the future.

Our health system is broken, and pumping more money into only makes it worse.

Post reply on HN