3 ms·

Consensus seems to be that the labs are profitable on inference. They are only losing money on training and free users. The competition requiring them to spend

Consensus seems to be that the labs are profitable on inference. They are only losing money on training and free users. The competition requiring them to spend that money on training and free users does complicate things. But when you just look at it from an inference perspective, looking at these data centres like token factories makes sense. I would definitely pay more to get faster inference of Opus 4.5, for example. This is also not wholly dissimilar to other industries where companies spend heavily on R&D while running profitable manufacturing. Pharma semiconductors, and hardware companies like Samsung or Apple all do this. The unusual part with AI labs is the ratio and the uncertainty, but that's a difference of degree, not kind.

Eisenstein 9mo ago
> But when you just look at it from an inference perspective, looking at these data centres like token factories makes sense. So if you ignore the majority of the costs, then it makes sense. Opus 4.5 was released on November 25, 2025. That is less than 2 months ago. When they stop training new models, then we can forget about training costs.
- sothatsit 9mo ago
  Inference costs scale linearly with usage. R&D expenses do not. That's not to mention that Dario Amodei has said that their models actually have a good return, even when accounting for training costs [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/GcqQ1ebBqkc?si=Vs2R4taIhj3uwIyj&t=1088 https://youtu.be/GcqQ1ebBqkc?si=Vs2R4taIhj3uwIyj&t=1088
  - Eisenstein 9mo ago
    > Inference costs scale linearly with usage. R&D expenses do not. Do we know this is true for AI?
    - sothatsit 9mo ago
      Yes. R&D is guaranteed to fall as a percentage of costs eventually. The only question is when, and there is also a question of who is still solvent when that time comes. It is competition and an innovation race that keeps it so high, and it won't stay so high forever. Either rising revenues or falling competition will bring R&D costs down as a percentage of revenue at some point.
      - saagarjha 9mo ago
        Yes, but eventually may be longer than the market can hold out. So far R&D expenses have skyrocketed and it does not look like that will be changing anytime soon.
        sothatsit 9mo ago
        That's why it is a bet, and not a sure thing.
    - brookst 9mo ago
      It’s pretty much the definition of fixed costs versus variable costs. You spend the same amount on R&D whether you have one hobbyist user or 90% market share.
- fc417fc802 9mo ago
  I'm not taking a side here - I don't know enough - but it's an interesting line of reasoning. So I'll ask, how is that any different than fabs? From what I understand R&D is absurd and upgrading to a new node is even more absurd. The resulting chips sell for chump change on a per unit basis (analogous to tokens). But somehow it all works out. Well, sort of. The bleeding edge companies kept dropping out until you could count them on one hand at this point. At first glance it seems like the analogy might fit?
  - short_sells_poo 9mo ago
    Someone else mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, and I believe this is the crux of the issue: this is all predicated in the actual end users finding enough benefit in LLM services to keep the gravy train going. It's irrelevant how scalable and profitable the shovel makes are, to keep this business afloat long term, the shovelers - ie the end users - have to make money using the shovesl. Those expectations are currently ridiculously inflated. Far beyond anything in the past. Invariably, there's going to be a collapse in the hype, the bubble will burst, and an investment deleveraging will remove a lot of money from the space in a short period of time. The bigger the bubble, the more painful and less survivable this event will be.
Forgeties79 9mo ago
>Consensus seems to be that the labs are profitable on inference. They are only losing money on training and free users. That sounds like “we’re profitable if you ignore our biggest expenses.” If they could be profitable now, we’d see at least a few companies just be profitable and stop the heavy expenses. My guess is it’s simply not the case or everyone’s trapped in a cycle where they are all required to keep spending too much to keep up and nobody wants to be the first to stop. Either way the outcome is the same.
- sothatsit 9mo ago
  This is just not true. Plenty of companies will remain unprofitable for as long as they can in the name of growth, market share, and beating their competition. At some point it will level out, but while they can still raise cheap capital and spend it to grow, they will. OpenAI could put in ads tomorrow and make tons of money overnight. The only reason they don't is competition. But when they start to find it harder to raise capital to fund their growth, they will.
  - Forgeties79 9mo ago
    I understand how this has worked historically but when have we seen this amount of money invested so rapidly into a new area? Crypto, social media, none of it comes close. I just don’t think those rules apply anymore. As I mentioned in a previous comment this is literally altering the economies of cities and states in the US, all driven by tech company speculation. This could be my own ignorance, but it seems to me that we have never seen anything like this, and I really can’t find a single sector that has ever seen this kind of investment before. I guess maybe railroads across the US in the 19th century? I’d have to actually look at what those numbers looked like and it’s pretty hard to call that comparing apple to apples.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]

Eisenstein 9mo ago

> But when you just look at it from an inference perspective, looking at these data centres like token factories makes sense. So if you ignore the majority of the costs, then it makes sense. Opus 4.5 was released on November 25, 2025. That is less than 2 months ago. When they stop training new models, then we can forget about training costs.

sothatsit 9mo ago
Inference costs scale linearly with usage. R&D expenses do not. That's not to mention that Dario Amodei has said that their models actually have a good return, even when accounting for training costs [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/GcqQ1ebBqkc?si=Vs2R4taIhj3uwIyj&t=1088 https://youtu.be/GcqQ1ebBqkc?si=Vs2R4taIhj3uwIyj&t=1088
- Eisenstein 9mo ago
  > Inference costs scale linearly with usage. R&D expenses do not. Do we know this is true for AI?
  - sothatsit 9mo ago
    Yes. R&D is guaranteed to fall as a percentage of costs eventually. The only question is when, and there is also a question of who is still solvent when that time comes. It is competition and an innovation race that keeps it so high, and it won't stay so high forever. Either rising revenues or falling competition will bring R&D costs down as a percentage of revenue at some point.
    - saagarjha 9mo ago
      Yes, but eventually may be longer than the market can hold out. So far R&D expenses have skyrocketed and it does not look like that will be changing anytime soon.
      - sothatsit 9mo ago
        That's why it is a bet, and not a sure thing.
  - brookst 9mo ago
    It’s pretty much the definition of fixed costs versus variable costs. You spend the same amount on R&D whether you have one hobbyist user or 90% market share.
fc417fc802 9mo ago
I'm not taking a side here - I don't know enough - but it's an interesting line of reasoning. So I'll ask, how is that any different than fabs? From what I understand R&D is absurd and upgrading to a new node is even more absurd. The resulting chips sell for chump change on a per unit basis (analogous to tokens). But somehow it all works out. Well, sort of. The bleeding edge companies kept dropping out until you could count them on one hand at this point. At first glance it seems like the analogy might fit?
- short_sells_poo 9mo ago
  Someone else mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, and I believe this is the crux of the issue: this is all predicated in the actual end users finding enough benefit in LLM services to keep the gravy train going. It's irrelevant how scalable and profitable the shovel makes are, to keep this business afloat long term, the shovelers - ie the end users - have to make money using the shovesl. Those expectations are currently ridiculously inflated. Far beyond anything in the past. Invariably, there's going to be a collapse in the hype, the bubble will burst, and an investment deleveraging will remove a lot of money from the space in a short period of time. The bigger the bubble, the more painful and less survivable this event will be.

Forgeties79 9mo ago

>Consensus seems to be that the labs are profitable on inference. They are only losing money on training and free users. That sounds like “we’re profitable if you ignore our biggest expenses.” If they could be profitable now, we’d see at least a few companies just be profitable and stop the heavy expenses. My guess is it’s simply not the case or everyone’s trapped in a cycle where they are all required to keep spending too much to keep up and nobody wants to be the first to stop. Either way the outcome is the same.

sothatsit 9mo ago
This is just not true. Plenty of companies will remain unprofitable for as long as they can in the name of growth, market share, and beating their competition. At some point it will level out, but while they can still raise cheap capital and spend it to grow, they will. OpenAI could put in ads tomorrow and make tons of money overnight. The only reason they don't is competition. But when they start to find it harder to raise capital to fund their growth, they will.
- Forgeties79 9mo ago
  I understand how this has worked historically but when have we seen this amount of money invested so rapidly into a new area? Crypto, social media, none of it comes close. I just don’t think those rules apply anymore. As I mentioned in a previous comment this is literally altering the economies of cities and states in the US, all driven by tech company speculation. This could be my own ignorance, but it seems to me that we have never seen anything like this, and I really can’t find a single sector that has ever seen this kind of investment before. I guess maybe railroads across the US in the 19th century? I’d have to actually look at what those numbers looked like and it’s pretty hard to call that comparing apple to apples.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]