- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Good luck with that!
We are already seeing some take their foot off the gas. They need to slam on the brakes and get spend to manageable levels.
They are pretending to hit the brakes because their products couldn’t meet their own hype. Now they sit back and wait to pay off the president personally for their next round of bail outs.
Inference seems profitable and scalable enough, given time… The real cost seems to be in growth and training future models. Ergo, a slowdown can only improve the financial position of OpenAI and Anthropic (which don’t seem stellar just now).
My theory is they want to get to AGI first because of the perceived payoff.
It’s like flooring it down the freeway, not knowing how far away your destination is, whether it even exists or is on this road at all, or even if it will enslave/kill you when you get there.
There is no AGI on the path that they are taking though.
Its like an airplane, the moment they start hitting the brakes it all crashes
Like an airplane speeding down the runway, running out of time to generate enough lift and already way past the option of safely aborting
“New products and uses that don’t exist today will enable new markets and opportunities from abundant intelligence – these may include drug discovery, mental health and energy generation,” Bain said
Our chat bots will surely be loved by everyone and embedded everywhere even if we don’t actually know why anyone would want to use something like that, but what about puppies! and healthy! here’s a picture of some happy people!
Revenue from new product development is projected to become the biggest contributor to the industry, estimated to generate about $4.2 trillion to fund the booming technology’s global market within the next half-decade
This is false. Bain says that $4.2T of extra magic platforms/revenue needs to be fantasized, beyond what can theoretically be hoped for. Not that it will be. The primary fantasy he brings up is if the relative handful of leading scientific/health researchers spend $3T to $4.2T on tokens per year to make breakthroughs. Since this is absurd/impossible, the answer would be extending circular financing techniques where researchers can sell shares of their future profits for token credits today. Extreme discounts on those tokens would need to be given.
The $6T figure is based on simple 25% formula of what past web/cpu datacenters have spent on keeping up with competition/demand/replacements. GPUs are much more expensive, and included power infrastructure that is only profitable if the GPUs stay there. The electricity bill is much higher with GPUs and even if everything is as automated as web server farms, it is lower margins on those revenues, and the replacements are more expensive. So $8T to $10T in annual revenue is a more appropriate target, and an even more unattainable one.
They will steal the scientific data anyway, just like Navier Stokes recenty.
That particular instance was more “using a public hint given by an expert” as a search path instead of theft. But, even when they say they don’t (and sometimes they explicitly keep prompts/responses for future training), they have the power to steal. An alternative to investing in R&D companies with tokens, mentioned above, is AI labs creating their own R&D divisions and hiring researchers directly. But that requires them coming up with even more money they don’t have.
Even at $6T (without my higher revision), it’s actual proof of AI bubble popping unless military/surveillance state buys $4T in tokens.