In a capitalist society, what is good or best is irrelevant. All that matters is if it makes money. AI makes no money. The $200 and $300/month plans put in rate limits because at those prices they’re losing too much money. Lets say the beak-even cost for a single request is somewhere between $1-$5 depending on the request just for the electricity, and people can barely afford food, housing, and transportation as it is. What is the business model for these LLMs going to be? A person could get a coffee today, or send a single request to an LLM? Now start thinking that they’ll need newer gpus next year. And the year after that. And after that. And the data center will need maintenance. They’re paying literally millions of dollars to individual programmers.
Maybe there is a niche market for mega corporations like Google who can afford to spend thousands of dollars a day on LLMs, but most companies won’t be able to afford these tools. Then there is the problem where if the company can afford these tools, do they even need them?
The only business model that makes sense to me is the one like BMW uses for their car seat warmers. BMW requires you to pay a monthly subscription to use the seat warmers in their cars. LLM makers could charge a monthly subscription to run a micro model on your own device. That free assistant in your Google phone would then be pay walled. That way businesses don’t need to carry the cost of the electricity, but the LLM is going to be fairly low functioning compared to what we get for free today. But the business model could work. As long as people don’t install a free version.
I don’t buy the idea that “LLMs are good so they are going to be a success”. Not as long as investors want to make money on their investments.
I imagine a dystopia where the main internet has been destroyed and watered down so you can only access it through a giant corpo llm (isps will become llmsps) So you choose between watching an ai generated movie for entertainment or a coffee. Because they will destroy the internet any way they can.
Also they’ll charge more for prompts related to things you like. Its all there for the plundering, and consumers want it.
I believe that if something has enough value, people are willing to pay for it. And by people here I mean primarily executives. The problem is that AI has not enough value to sustain the hype.
62% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Perhaps saying most Americans are struggling is doomerism, but what percentage living paycheck to paycheck no longer counts as doomerism and is just a harsh truth? 75%? 90%? Do you think the number of people living paycheck to paycheck is increasing or decreasing this year?
You demand citations for this, something that has been extensively covered in the news, but also throw around arguments like “absolutely inflated but it’s definitely real value” and “we’re way past the point of tech bubbles popping”. Who is cringe here?
Americans are not all people. Its a single country that still buys out all Nintendo switches and cyrbertrucks - so maybe if americans had budgeting classes they wouldn’t take payday loans for twinkies? The conjecture here is just mind bogglingly stupid.
America has bought out cybertrucks? Nope, not even close. Dunno about switches, but since I’ve recently seen them on shelves, guessing those haven’t been bought out either though.
In a capitalist society, what is good or best is irrelevant. All that matters is if it makes money. AI makes no money. The $200 and $300/month plans put in rate limits because at those prices they’re losing too much money. Lets say the beak-even cost for a single request is somewhere between $1-$5 depending on the request just for the electricity, and people can barely afford food, housing, and transportation as it is. What is the business model for these LLMs going to be? A person could get a coffee today, or send a single request to an LLM? Now start thinking that they’ll need newer gpus next year. And the year after that. And after that. And the data center will need maintenance. They’re paying literally millions of dollars to individual programmers.
Maybe there is a niche market for mega corporations like Google who can afford to spend thousands of dollars a day on LLMs, but most companies won’t be able to afford these tools. Then there is the problem where if the company can afford these tools, do they even need them?
The only business model that makes sense to me is the one like BMW uses for their car seat warmers. BMW requires you to pay a monthly subscription to use the seat warmers in their cars. LLM makers could charge a monthly subscription to run a micro model on your own device. That free assistant in your Google phone would then be pay walled. That way businesses don’t need to carry the cost of the electricity, but the LLM is going to be fairly low functioning compared to what we get for free today. But the business model could work. As long as people don’t install a free version.
I don’t buy the idea that “LLMs are good so they are going to be a success”. Not as long as investors want to make money on their investments.
Are you baiting the fine people here?
I imagine a dystopia where the main internet has been destroyed and watered down so you can only access it through a giant corpo llm (isps will become llmsps) So you choose between watching an ai generated movie for entertainment or a coffee. Because they will destroy the internet any way they can.
Also they’ll charge more for prompts related to things you like. Its all there for the plundering, and consumers want it.
I believe that if something has enough value, people are willing to pay for it. And by people here I mean primarily executives. The problem is that AI has not enough value to sustain the hype.
Citation needed. The doomerism in this thread is so cringe.
62% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Perhaps saying most Americans are struggling is doomerism, but what percentage living paycheck to paycheck no longer counts as doomerism and is just a harsh truth? 75%? 90%? Do you think the number of people living paycheck to paycheck is increasing or decreasing this year?
https://econofact.org/factbrief/is-there-a-consensus-that-a-majority-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck#%3A~%3Atext=While+one+survey+by+LendingClub%2Cspending%3B+62%25+answered+yes.
deleted by creator
You know the world is not america right?
People are increasingly taking out loans to buy groceries. Nobody does that if they have a better choice.
You demand citations for this, something that has been extensively covered in the news, but also throw around arguments like “absolutely inflated but it’s definitely real value” and “we’re way past the point of tech bubbles popping”. Who is cringe here?
Americans are not all people. Its a single country that still buys out all Nintendo switches and cyrbertrucks - so maybe if americans had budgeting classes they wouldn’t take payday loans for twinkies? The conjecture here is just mind bogglingly stupid.
Ha, rich
Did I say something untrue?
America has bought out cybertrucks? Nope, not even close. Dunno about switches, but since I’ve recently seen them on shelves, guessing those haven’t been bought out either though.