3 ms·
Ok, I clearly should have made the wording more explict since this is the second comment I got in the same vein. I'm not saying you'd convert users to $1/month
by jsnell 1y ago
Ok, I clearly should have made the wording more explict since this is the second comment I got in the same vein. I'm not saying you'd convert users to $1/month subscriptions. That would indeed be an absurd idea.
I'm saying that good-enough LLMs are so cheap that they could easily be monetized with ads, and it's not even close. If you look at other companies with similar sized consumer-facing services monetized with ads, their ARPU is far higher than $1.
A lot of people have this mental model of LLMs being so expensive that they can’t possibly be ad-supported, leaving subscriptions as the only consumer option. That might have been true two years ago, but I don't think it's true now.
- andrew_lettuce 1y agoThere are some big problems with this, mostly that openAI doesn't want to break even or be profitable, their entire setup is based on being wildly so. Building a Google sized business on ads is incredibly difficult. They need to be so much better than the competition that we have no choice but to use them, and that's not the case any more. More minor but still a major issue is the underlying IP rights. As users mature they will increasingly look for citations from LLMs, and if open AI is monetizing in this vein everyone is going to come for a piece.
- NewsaHackO 1y ago> mostly that openAI doesn't want to break even or be profitable, their entire setup is based on being wildly so. I’m sure you are going to provide some sort of evidence for this otherwise ridiculous claim, correct?
- ac29 1y agoOpenAI is attempting to develop AGI. For most definitions of AGI, that would be a pretty wild success. Theres another path where AI progress plateaus soon and OpenAI remains a profitably going concern of much more modest size, but that is not the goal.