• seven_phone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    So now we are actually to the point where we can ask if a corporation or more widely anything at all has any value if it makes no profit.

    There are people in the world who by luck of birth or circumstance have amassed obscene wealth and they after the fact are trying to convince everyone that profit is the only thing of value. These are the real public enemies.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      A company can have value without making profit. It can own assets. It has value in its staff.

      Now should it have a valuation like OpenAI? Fuck no!

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This is the post-scarcity shift. This is how it happens.

      We need to take, by force, those who have too much and give it to those who have too little.

      They will be kicking and screaming. That means we’re doing something right, because they are not our allies.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Altman has since said the company is losing money on its $200-per-month Pro subscriptions, which offer limitless access to its most recent model, OpenAI o1, and to its video generator, Sora AI. “People use it much more than we expected,” he wrote in a post on X.

      It’s ridiculous. More people use the product, so they’re losing money? What. That’s the complete opposite of what a business is.

      Not to mention the environmental damage they’ve been doing for close to no positive results.

      • nolefan33@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        13 hours ago

        It’s not more people using the product, it’s the limited population who are paying $200/month use it way more than they thought they would. So the costs per person paying that are going way over $200/month. Basically, they made the mistake of setting a fuck off price that was too low and a bunch of people did the math and took them up on the offer.

        • dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          If the product costs that much to run, and most users aren’t abusing their access, it’s possible the product isn’t profitable at any price that enough users are willing to pay.

          • masterspace@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            This is dumb. Moore’s law may be mostly dead, but chips are still progressing at an absurd pace. In 6 years you’ll be able to run the o1 model on a raspberry Pi with no internet access.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              Nvidias latest gen looks to be 30% faster after 2 years of development with about the same power usage increase. So no reduction in Joules per GOP, just a speed increase.

              In 6 years they might go 2x the speed of today but need double the watts (to deliver the same energy in half the time).

            • dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Maybe, but i never mentioned years into the future. Of course technology will improve. The hardware will get better and more effcient, and the algorithms and techniques will improve.

              But as it stands now, i still think what i said is true. We obviously don’t have exact numbers, so i can only speculate.

              Having lots of memory is a big part of inference, so I was going to reply to you that prices of memory stopped going down at a similar historical rate, but i found this, which is interesting

              https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage?time=2020..latest

              The cost when down by about 0.1x from 2000 to 2010. 2010-2020 it was only about 0.23x. 2020-2023 shows roughly another halving of the price, which is still a pretty good rate.

              The available memory is still only one part. The speed of the memory and the compute connected to it also plays a big part in how these current systems work.

      • seven_phone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Because the people that innovate do not care for business and are not good at it, but everything in this world we created has to be sold so there is always this initial mismatch before the business graduate vultures, who innovate nothing descend on it, beg control and then go way too far in the opposite direction. At that late point the only innovation will be a slightly more rounded set of icons on the website.

      • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I almost shat myself in half when I saw how much water is needed for cooling for every prompt