4 ms·

The issue is we're moving past the "initially" phase and people are starting to suspect that the $10T golden goose is mythical. GPT-5??

mewpmewp2 1y ago
I think it's more complex than that. You need to get really specific to calculate the potential value. It's entirely possible that there's 30 use-cases where it's very valuable, it's possible there's 80 use-cases where it's not valuable, and it's unclear how these use-cases are going to balance out in the future. To calculate whether all of this is over or undervalued would require analyzing and understanding all of those use cases and their impact very carefully. There's a lot of direct and indirect value, presumably no one is capable of currently calculating all of that anywhere near accuracy so people are making intuition based guesses on whatever data they can get hold of, but again - not so clear. I personally think that there's many levels of innovation still to come in terms of robotics, APIs/Frameworks/Coding languages/Infra specifically for LLMs to provide easier and more foolproof ways to code and do things otherwise. I think it's far from played out. I personally think that a lot of potential is still untapped.
patall 1y ago
Than why don't they raise prices? If AI developers were only worth 200k a year, nobody would pay X times those salaries and development would be cheaper. Similar, if none of the AI coding companies had free offerings, they would have less inference cost or more revenue. Yet they have the feeling that they need to offer those, likely because of competition. The article paints it as if the big companies are a factor of 2 away from profitability. Would absolutely nobody use AI if their tokens were double the price? I highly doubt that.
tim333 1y ago
There is also the issue that the investors in present geese may find they don't get the golden egg laying one and it actually gets raised by some other goose farmer, like investing in Digg when Facebook would end up with the eggs.

mewpmewp2 1y ago

I think it's more complex than that. You need to get really specific to calculate the potential value. It's entirely possible that there's 30 use-cases where it's very valuable, it's possible there's 80 use-cases where it's not valuable, and it's unclear how these use-cases are going to balance out in the future. To calculate whether all of this is over or undervalued would require analyzing and understanding all of those use cases and their impact very carefully. There's a lot of direct and indirect value, presumably no one is capable of currently calculating all of that anywhere near accuracy so people are making intuition based guesses on whatever data they can get hold of, but again - not so clear. I personally think that there's many levels of innovation still to come in terms of robotics, APIs/Frameworks/Coding languages/Infra specifically for LLMs to provide easier and more foolproof ways to code and do things otherwise. I think it's far from played out. I personally think that a lot of potential is still untapped.

patall 1y ago

Than why don't they raise prices? If AI developers were only worth 200k a year, nobody would pay X times those salaries and development would be cheaper. Similar, if none of the AI coding companies had free offerings, they would have less inference cost or more revenue. Yet they have the feeling that they need to offer those, likely because of competition. The article paints it as if the big companies are a factor of 2 away from profitability. Would absolutely nobody use AI if their tokens were double the price? I highly doubt that.

tim333 1y ago

There is also the issue that the investors in present geese may find they don't get the golden egg laying one and it actually gets raised by some other goose farmer, like investing in Digg when Facebook would end up with the eggs.