Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Darkness double-posted this 3 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,431,787
The concept that you can spend more money than you earn so that you can sell more of a product that costs more to operate than you earn in revenue from use of that product so you can beg investors to give you more money in the hopes the economics will magically work, jail. Why is this tolerated?
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,431,789
@1,431,786 (Darkness)
Employing people is expensive.
it's not just their salary, its the payroll taxes, the office rent, the cleaning crew for those offices, utility bills, space for their car, liability insurance in case they trip at work, possible lawsuits if someone takes a statement the wrong way.
total costs can be 2x or 3x higher than their nominal salary.
These data centers can easily pay for themselves. running one agent 24/7 is exponentially cheaper than hiring a flesh and blood person.
Not to mention you can repurpose those servers if the market changes.
Don't expect this to go away, they have billions to spend because they made good bets in the past. The internet bubble popped, but web companies are worth several times more now than right after the "pop".
Darkness joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,431,802
@1,431,789 (B)
That’s survivorship bias. Plenty of companies went out of business when the dot com bubble burst. Not every AI company will be successful or exist 20 years from now. Especially since they’re all offering essentially the same product.
Darkness double-posted this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,431,803
Tech tends to create monopolies. If you look at search engine market share, operating system market share, operating system market share, smartphone brand market share, etc. there is usually only space for 1 or 2 brands to dominate 80% to 90% of the market. I don’t think that AI won’t exist, I just think anyone with a brain can look at this situation and see the way companies are approaching generative AI is completely unsustainable and most of the current AI companies won’t survive. I’m not saying none of them will survive, I’m just saying, most won’t.
And so on and so on, this is true for most things you can think of in tech. There isn’t space for Microsoft and OpenAI and Google and Anthropic and Amazon and Meta. Somebody’s going to lose.
Darkness double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,431,813
It depends on what you mean by "research and development" if you’re counting training models as "research and development" in order to run their business, they’re never going to stop doing that. They’re never going to have a perfect model one day that never needs to be improved again.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,431,814
@previous (Darkness)
They don't need to create a perfect model, they could use the models they already have, and fine tune them on more recent news for virtually nothing.
The goal isn't to rest on their laurels and make a little bit of money, the goal is to expand into new industries with new capabilities.
They added agents that can browse the web, and use a cursor. They improved their image generation tools.
When they can completely replace remote workers and photoshop they have more revenue streams.
If models stopped developing now there would still be a lot of growth in selling the tech to companies that haven't updated from old techniques. There's still room for modern companies to grab market share from companies that refuse to adapt.
> They don't need to create a perfect model, they could use the models they already have, and fine tune them on more recent news for virtually nothing.