this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
774 points (99.9% liked)

TechTakes

1532 readers
90 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If they are losing money on $200/month, that does not necessarily mean they lose money on the $20/month.

One is unlimited, the other is not. You only have to use the $200 subscription more than 10 times the amount the $20 subscription allows for OpenAI to earn less on that subscription.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 days ago

We already know they're losing money on everything

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is something I've been speculating for a while. The cost of running these complex systems (as OpenAI models aren't just LLMs) is subsidized so heavily that we don't really know the cost of running these things.

This is a huge risk to any business, as the price for these services has to go up significantly in the long term.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ed Zitron calculated from the publicly available numbers that OpenAI was spending $2.35 for every $1 of ChatGPT they sell

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (19 children)

Can someone explain the Pale Horse reference?

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)

really looking forward to how these multi-billion dollar AI datacenter investments will work out for big tech companies

that said I'm pretty sure most of that capacity is reserved for the surveillance state anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lukewarm_ozone 31 points 3 days ago (5 children)

By "Sam Altman said" in a "series of posts", this article means these two tweets from 10 hours ago: https://twitter.com/sama/status/1876104580070813976.
This is a screenshot of a tweet talking about an article written about two tweets by Sam Altman. Is this really the world we're living in, now?

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 33 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah, and I think you're pretending it's more ridiculous than it is

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 10 points 2 days ago

Welcome to the wonderful XXI century where our innovations in communication technology and financial instruments allow a hyperoptimised economy where two tweets are more than enough to cause billion-dollar shifts on the market. Completely organic and based on solid fundamentals I am assured by the same people that assured me of this in 2000 and 2008.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 27 points 3 days ago

Never offer unlimited on a utility model without guardrails. That’s just business 101.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›