3 ms·
AI is still not obviously useful enough that people are willing to pay the compute cost for what it produces. I witness the exact opposite. Example: Pr
by ArtTimeInvestor 2y ago
AI is still not obviously useful enough
that people are willing to pay the compute
cost for what it produces.
I witness the exact opposite. Example: Programmers with $100/hour salary who send a query for $0.01 to an LLM which saves them an hour of work to figure out how to use an API and integrate it into their application.
- MobiusHorizons 2y agoI’m not saying no one will be willing to pay for it, but rather that the number of people willing to pay for it will decrease when the prices start to reflect all the costs necessary to become profitable. A lot of investor money is currently keeping those costs artificially low for growth, and to find product market fit. In my opinion the number of use cases people (and especially businesses) will be willing to pay full price for are not yet obviously large enough to dominate global compute.
- ArtTimeInvestor 2y agoprices start to reflect all the costs necessary The costs of saving one hour of human work is already basically zero. $0.01 as I said. Operating the infrastructure for that is already profitable. You cannot put R&D into the "costs necessary". Even for the most extreme applications, the cost is basically zero. Look at how capable the compute stack in every Tesla is. Look at GPUs used on Huggingface that cost a few hundred dollars and can output a photorealistic image in a few seconds. To replace most human work, we don't even need those extreme cases of compute. Look up what most people do for work these days. They do really simple tasks.