71–80 of 426 posts
I think I'm going to puke if I see one more "It's not X. It's Y." phrase or the word "load-bearing" used metaphorically.
One can at least hope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Managers in my org love using it in "their" Slack messages.
I've come to realize that folks are including "ai-slop" in their ~public use of AI to intentionally signal to others that they're using AI. To some, that signal results in revulsion. To others, that signal results in approval. In my opinion, the approval signal comes from investors, board members, c-suite, and now management. They want us to use AI? Let's make sure they know we are.
Article is mistaken these subs are not available to businesses. Companies are paying much closer to API prices. The strategy is to get you accustomed to infinite tokens on your personal sub and bet that behavior transfers to work.
They are available. Seats for team or enterprise plans cost more than the retail prices, but they are fixed prices with resetting usage limits. You can assign seats to members that are the equivalent of $20/$100/$200/mo plans. You can also do everything metered. There are multiple ways to buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, people see "they're not profitable once you account for training" and equate that to "AI will go away soon" But if all the AI companies stopped training new models, they would all instantly become profitable (and stick around) The thing that makes them unprofitable, is having to compete (which means training models). If / when enough companies exit the market, the cost to compete goes down and you end…
Sure, but if companies don't exit the market and FOSS alternatives don't end up being unable to get near them in quality, they have to keep spending on training. And conversely, if the market becomes uncompetitive and FOSS sucks, the winners of the AI arms race are very strongly incentivised to stick their prices up anyway...
Eh, the AI companies still have lots of datacentres. For the guys who funded with equity, they could collapse down to just running those as utilities. (For the guys who funded with debt, they'd have to restructure.)
From the customer's perspective, this situation shouldn't result in a cost spike. (Consolidation, on the other hand, would. But that's a separate argument from the one the article attemptes to make.)
--You lose control over their "salary"
--You lose control over their "schedule"
--Your company becomes reliant on another party that does not share your interests or values, and can stop working for you on a whim for any reason
But AI is definitely good and trade unions are definitely bad, apparently...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we know they are making a profit though? They could be subsidizing use to build market share the same way. They might not have billions, but at the volumes they are selling maybe they’ve got the cash to do it. Even if they are “profitable” how many Uber drivers are “profitable” because they aren’t correctly calculating asset depreciation. Maybe these guys are doing the same thing. Maybe it’s a lot of people who al…
also, it's very much possible that the chinese companies get heavy investments from the state. Since it's very hard to get this info we have no idea wether they really make a profit or not.
Brad Gerstner confirmed that tokens aren't being sold at a loss. Whatever the formula, API + Subscription split, the companies are making a profit on net token sale. They maybe running at loss after all the salaries and stock comp, but tokens are in profit now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like witnessing a rocket using the most powerful engine on Earth then once it escaped orbit turn off the engine and said "It is flying without power!". Yes, sure, right now it is ... but that's NOT how it got here. There are trillions invested to recoup and at most billions in sales. It doesn't add up to tokens making a profit any time soon.
> There are trillions invested to recoup and at most billions in sales. It doesn't add up to tokens making a profit any time soon But this isn't "a ticking time bomb for enterprise." It's an issue for the AI companies' investors.
It's like selling dope, once they're addicted, a dealer could turn the screw on them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are trillions invested to recoup and at most billions in sales. It doesn't add up to tokens making a profit any time soon But this isn't "a ticking time bomb for enterprise." It's an issue for the AI companies' investors.
Not really, because investors will sooner or later want to see real returns on what they invested. Tokens are suddenly not dirt cheap and enterprises are screwed. It's like selling dope, once they're addicted, a dealer could turn the screw on them
If things don't end up working out a lot of people have already been (and in the future will be) paid. It's the investors that will lose out, not the subscriber.