• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    11 months ago

    With OpenAI being at the center of the AI hype, I would’ve thought they’d be raking in the dough instead of losing $5 billion. So it’s really just Nvidia making money on this bullshit, huh? It’ll hurt when the hype dies down and Nvidia drops from the second top spot on the S&P 500. We’re all going to feel that one.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think this is just OpenAI marketing.

    “Insane thing: We are currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions!” he wrote in a post.

    The problem? Well according to @Sama, “people use it much more than we expected.”

    Oh no, ChatGPT is too useful to customers! Altman isn’t going to be telling any real problems that OpenAI has to the whole world over Twitter.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re right, that’s definitely what Sam is trying to do here. Unfortunately for him, he’s still an idiot, and he’s inadvertently telling on himself here by openly confirming what’s been well understood for a while; ChatGPT simply is not profitable to run because the models are so stupidly inefficient. That’s a real problem, and one that they’ve shown no meaningful plan for solving.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    That’s because the whole thing is stupid. Is made by stupids, marketed to stupids, paid by stupids, and for the most part used by stupids. Because they’re stupid.

    There’s a pattern in there if you look closely.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        If AI cost peanuts to run, this would be a very reasonable point. But it doesn’t. It’s staggeringly expensive to operate something like ChatGPT.

        So any use of genAI has to consider the question “Do the benefits provided actually justify the cost?”

        Obviously, in a capitalist society this turns into “How can we monetize this?”, but even in a fully socialist society it would still be necessary to ask if this technology is actually providing sufficient societal benefit to actually justify the material resource cost of running it.

    • ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      The amount of money stupid gives to stupid, though. Makes my stomach churn. So much for so little.

    • babybus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or you’re stupid because you can’t use LLMs effectively, don’t understand their value, and now you’re angry because of that.