3 ms·

> The reason why I partially note this as wrong is that even in the 70s people recognized that supersonic travel had real concrete issues with no solution in s

> The reason why I partially note this as wrong is that even in the 70s people recognized that supersonic travel had real concrete issues with no solution in sight. I don't think LLMs share that characteristic today. The fundamental problem has already been mentioned: Nobody can figure out how to SELL it. Because few people are buying it. It's useful for aggregation and summarization of large amounts of text, but it's not trustworthy. A good summary decreases noise and amplifies signal. LLMs don't do that. Without the capability to validate the output, it's not really generating output of lasting value. It's just a slightly better search engine. It feels like, fundamentally, the primary invention here is teaching computers that it's okay to be wrong as long as you're convincing. That's very useful for propaganda or less savory aspects of business, but it's less useful for actual communication.

kenjackson 1y ago
> Nobody can figure out how to SELL it. Because few people are buying it. Just picking one company who basically just does AI, OpenAI. They reported it has 20 million PAID subscribers to ChatGPT. With revenue projected above $12b dollars (https://www.theverge.com/openai/640894/chatgpt-has-hit-20-million-paid-subscribers https://www.theverge.com/openai/640894/chatgpt-has-hit-20-mi...). I think what you meant to say is that costs are high so they can't generate large profits. but saying that they can't figure out how to sell it seems absurd. Is it Netflix level of subscribers, no. But there can't be more than a couple of hundred products that have that type of subscription reach.
- strange_quark 1y ago
  Ok but isn’t 20 million subscribers out of what, 800 million or 1 billion monthly users or whatever they’re claiming, an absolutely abysmal conversion rate? Especially given that the industry and media have been proclaiming this as somewhere between the internet and the industrial revolution in terms of impact and advancement? Why can they not get more than 3% of users to convert to paying subscribers for such a supposedly world changing technology, even with a massive subsidy?
  - oarsinsync 1y ago
    Because they give too much of it away for free? Most casual use fits into the very generous free tier.
    - strange_quark 1y ago
      Ok so the argument is that all the model builders either suck at business or they are purposefully choosing to lose billions of dollars?
      - alonsonic 1y ago
        They are purposely losing billions, this is a growth phase where all of the big AI companies are racing to grow their userbase, later down the line they will monetize that captured userbase. This is very similar to Uber which lost money for 14 years before becoming profitable, but with significantly more upside. Investors see the growth, user stickiness and potential for the tech; and are throwing money to burn to be part of the winning team, which will turn on the money switch on that userbase down the line. The biggest companies and investors in the planet aren't all bad at business.
        vrighter 1y ago
        I'd say the userbase has grown. You can't claim half a billion users and simultaneously say you're still trying to grow. This isn't a month-old technology now. And they still can't turn a profit. (edit: and by "you" i meant "they")
        famouswaffles 1y ago
        >You can't claim half a billion users and simultaneously say you're still trying to grow. You can if you're still growing. ChatGPT is the 5th most visited site on the planet yes, but it is still growing hundreds of millions of visits with every passing month. They aren't turning a profit because they aren't monetizing the vast majority of subscribers in any way (not even ads). LLM inference is cheap enough for ads to be viable.
closewith 1y ago
In my companies, AI subscriptions and API access are now the biggest costs after salaries and taxes. Don't know what makes you think these services aren't attracting paid customers?

kenjackson 1y ago

> Nobody can figure out how to SELL it. Because few people are buying it. Just picking one company who basically just does AI, OpenAI. They reported it has 20 million PAID subscribers to ChatGPT. With revenue projected above $12b dollars (https://www.theverge.com/openai/640894/chatgpt-has-hit-20-million-paid-subscribers https://www.theverge.com/openai/640894/chatgpt-has-hit-20-mi...). I think what you meant to say is that costs are high so they can't generate large profits. but saying that they can't figure out how to sell it seems absurd. Is it Netflix level of subscribers, no. But there can't be more than a couple of hundred products that have that type of subscription reach.

strange_quark 1y ago
Ok but isn’t 20 million subscribers out of what, 800 million or 1 billion monthly users or whatever they’re claiming, an absolutely abysmal conversion rate? Especially given that the industry and media have been proclaiming this as somewhere between the internet and the industrial revolution in terms of impact and advancement? Why can they not get more than 3% of users to convert to paying subscribers for such a supposedly world changing technology, even with a massive subsidy?
- oarsinsync 1y ago
  Because they give too much of it away for free? Most casual use fits into the very generous free tier.
  - strange_quark 1y ago
    Ok so the argument is that all the model builders either suck at business or they are purposefully choosing to lose billions of dollars?
    - alonsonic 1y ago
      They are purposely losing billions, this is a growth phase where all of the big AI companies are racing to grow their userbase, later down the line they will monetize that captured userbase. This is very similar to Uber which lost money for 14 years before becoming profitable, but with significantly more upside. Investors see the growth, user stickiness and potential for the tech; and are throwing money to burn to be part of the winning team, which will turn on the money switch on that userbase down the line. The biggest companies and investors in the planet aren't all bad at business.
      - vrighter 1y ago
        I'd say the userbase has grown. You can't claim half a billion users and simultaneously say you're still trying to grow. This isn't a month-old technology now. And they still can't turn a profit. (edit: and by "you" i meant "they")
        famouswaffles 1y ago
        >You can't claim half a billion users and simultaneously say you're still trying to grow. You can if you're still growing. ChatGPT is the 5th most visited site on the planet yes, but it is still growing hundreds of millions of visits with every passing month. They aren't turning a profit because they aren't monetizing the vast majority of subscribers in any way (not even ads). LLM inference is cheap enough for ads to be viable.

closewith 1y ago

In my companies, AI subscriptions and API access are now the biggest costs after salaries and taxes. Don't know what makes you think these services aren't attracting paid customers?