Earlier quoted context omitted.
At that cost I'd just buy some GPUs and run a local model though. Maybe a couple RTX 6000s.
Those won’t be sufficient to run SOTA/trillion parameter models
And most tasks don't demand that.
America's $1T AI Gamble
41–50 of 88 posts
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#42Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#43And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html
I love how they say with a straight face that when AI takes over they will finally share all the fruits of capital with us.
Y'all gotta stop looking at politics this way.
You know why they don't share the fruits of capital with us now? Because Americans hate getting taxed to pay for welfare, and so they've been voting against taxes for 50 years. This whole political landscape changes when people lose their jobs to AI, a thing that everyone thinks should be taxed. In fact, the entire ideological underpinning behind extreme wealth accumulation is gone when AI runs everything.
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is more than one month rent for most of the world. Most people are simply not going to pay this.
Well then I'm sorry but unfortunately they are going to be left behind. People who are cut out to be software developers can afford the means of production.
Things that can only be used by an exclusive elite don't tend to survive, unless we're talking super-yachts.
AI is only going to work if enough people can actually meaningfully use it.
Therefore, the monetisation model will have to adapt in ways that make it sustainable. OpenAI is experimenting with ads. Other companies will just subsidise the living daylights out of their solutions...and a few people will indeed run this stuff locally.
Look at how slow the adoption of VR has been. And how badly Meta's gamble on the metaverse went. It's still too expensive for most people. Yes, a small elite can afford the necessary equipment, but that's not a petri dish on which one can grow a paradigm-shift.
If only a few thousand people could afford [insert any invention here], that invention wouldn't be common-place nowadays.
Now, the pyramid has sort of been turned on its head, in the sense that things nowadays don't start expensive and then become cheaper, but instead start cheap and then become...something else, be that more expensive or riddled with ads. But there are limits to this.
> People who are cut out to be software developers
You mean the people AI is going to replace? What's the definition of 'cut out to be' here?
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how they say with a straight face that when AI takes over they will finally share all the fruits of capital with us.
The French had a tool for this problem.
Yes, guns, clubs, fire, and steel weapons. And afterward they had the Reign of Terror, and the rise of the French Emperor Napoleon. It seems like it mostly worked out in the long run, though subsequent World Wars left the French Empire as a weakened shell of itself. In the short term, up until Napoleon was finally taken down by the combined British and Prussian forces at Waterloo, it seemed to have led to all sorts of calamities. How many died? How many did Robespierre manage to get sentenced to death before he met the same fate? Would Napoleon have risen and caused the death of so many?
One thing would-be revolutionaries don't appreciate is that, well, similar to Mr. Putin's experience today, revolutions (and wars) are much easier to start than to control. One day you're chopping off the leader's head, the next day you are pressed into military service and your Constitution is gone. I personally would rather be patient and work on reforming institutions, even if it takes a much longer time. Often times when we get rid of them, it's not that something better fills the void, as anarchists (communists or libertarians alike) like to claim, but instead it's nothing and that capability is gone until some calamity restores the need.
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about you, but I benefit so much from using Claude at work that I would gladly pay $1,500-$2,000 per month to keep using it.
That is more than one month rent for most of the world. Most people are simply not going to pay this.
My rent is less than that. But if you add up salary, payroll taxes, benefits, social security etc my employer still spends around four times that amount on employing me. More if you include misc overheads associated with having one more employee. Personally I could never afford 1500-2000€/month for dev tooling, but my employer should rationally be willing to spend that for anything that makes me more than 25% more effective.
I'm not sure today's Claude Code could ask for that. But I don't think it would be a crazy goal for them to work towards
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#47Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
The French had a tool for this problem.
And look how it has worked out for them.
Only because the U.S. and U.K. conspired against them. The French did everything they could to keep the fire burning, by hosting people from various countries to teach them about revolution. Organizing globally against the rich parasites was hard and expensive back then. Now the only hold back, is that the rich parasites own most of the internet.
But WE BUILT IT, and can take back the internet when we finally realize it's not dems vs reps, but rich vs poor. It's always been a class war, they just are much better at keeping us distracted.
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#49AI plans are not going to stay at $20/mo. People will go to alternative models, but it likely will be as popular as Linux.
Yeah, this is something I am thinking a lot about. Companies won't be able to sustain this level of spending forever, and one of two things will need to happen: 1. Models become commodities and immensely cheaper to operate for inference as a result of some future innovation. This would presumably be very bad for the handful of companies who have invested that $1T and want to recoup that, but great for those of us who…
Back of the envelope calculations point to $60-$80/mo plans for 5-10y payback period.
This also fits with OpenAIs announced advertising cost, and is something most consumers can stomach.
Re: America's $1T AI Gamble
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use my brain, it's free
Fitting response for an account called "clownpenis_fart". The future is here and it's time to stop ignoring it. Your analog 1x productivity is worthless in comparison to my AI backed 10x productivity.
Yuck.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Honestly, if you just made your profile a day ago to yell overly confident and meaningless statements into the void, like a Mandrill in the jungle trying to shout over all the others, go back to LinkedIn, they like that kind of stuff there.
I even agree that AI has a place in our world and can greatly increase productivity. But we should talk about the how and why, instead of attacking others ad hominem and just stopping any discourse with absolutist nonsense.