4 ms·

It tells you that 500 million people will be paying $60-$80/mo for AI. Something they find as indispensable as a cell phone or internet bill. The numbers actua

It tells you that 500 million people will be paying $60-$80/mo for AI. Something they find as indispensable as a cell phone or internet bill. The numbers actually work really well, (un)fortunately.

anonymous908213 9mo ago
I don't know how you can write down those numbers and come to the conclusion they sound reasonable at all. Corporations literally can't give this trash away for free without consumers being unhappy about it (eg. the Copilot malware infesting every aspect of Windows). ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat interface, when all potential applications for actually improving their lives are failing badly? I think you are out of touch with the finances of non-tech-indsutry workers if you think they will.
- jgalt212 9mo ago
  > ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat Even if these things worked great for everyone, the percent of free uses who convert to paid users is low single digits per cent. For OpenAI to have any chance of breaking even in the consumer space, they need to develop an ad biz that makes around 20-25% of G does. That's a tall order in that G doesn't make good dough from search anymore as SERP page clicks are down 80% with AI summaries being good enough for most.
  - lopis 9mo ago
    And let's not forget that for the bubble to sustain itself, people would currently use different LLMs would need to create a separate account in each one. There's absolutely no way most people will be paying more than one LLM unless they have a lot of disposable income.
- WarmWash 9mo ago
  I don't know a single person in my (non-tech!) life that doesn't use AI, shy of toddlers and geriatric people. The famous MIT study (95% of AI initiatives fail, remember that one?) actually found that pretty much every worker was using AI almost daily, but used their personal accounts (hence the corporate ones not being used). If you are brand new to the tech world, and this is your first new product cycle, the way it works is that there is a free-cool-we're-awesomely-generous phase, and then when you are hooked and they are entrenched, the real price comes to fruition. See...pretty much every tech start-up burning runway cash. Right now they are getting us hooked, and like the dumbasses consumers are, they will become totally dependent and think it will stay this cheap.
  - enraged_camel 9mo ago
    A good way to think about it is that ChatGPT is well on its way to becoming a verb like Google did. Doesn't roll off the tongue as easily but in terms of brand awareness it feels ubiquitous.
  - hattmall 9mo ago
    I use AI frequently. I am frequently let down. Occasionally satisfied and very rarely impressed. My results seem typical for everyone else I know. It's a free and widely promoted tool that has the potential to be useful, of course people will use it. The features I find most useful, is not providing me new knowledge. It's formalizing something I wrote or summarizing some other text, that I am going to read anyway or can at least reference as needed and confirm the output. This is also where the local models Excel. I also often see people post AI generated advice and answers that are simply incorrect in Facebook groups and get roasted with 100s of people chiming in on how you can trust ChatGPT. I just can't see regular people are going to pay more than (NetFlix + HBO + Prime + WM+) for an AI subscription. I think you would see tons of competitors pop up if that were at all viable.
  - hunterpayne 9mo ago
    > actually found that pretty much every worker was using AI almost daily What they found is that people search the Internet for things and an AI bot is right there. What they didn't find is people using Vibe coded apps, learning from AI or buying AI services. They did find companies buying AI services, but as an experiment. Also, blaming AI is easy when someone messes up and costs a customer or sale. The more that happens, the sooner the company stops experimenting. If that happens in a widespread way, then this bubble collapses.
- keybored 9mo ago
  > I don't know how you can write down those numbers and come to the conclusion they sound reasonable at all. Half this board is in the most hyped echo chamber I’ve ever seen.
- therealdrag0 9mo ago
  Just like all feemium, it’s supported by power users. I pay for gpt myself, and my work pays for Copilot, GPT, Claude, cursor, Glean, and other enterprise tools. And we make enterprise tools on top of AI that our customers pay extra for. Averaging the revenue over headcount isn’t the right model, anymore than it would be for RIOT games or YouTube.
jgalt212 9mo ago
fair enough, but the consumer is already stretched. So where is this $60-80 per month X 500MM consumers coming from?
- WarmWash 9mo ago
  Consumer spending is strong and growing, don't listen to dregs milking upvotes on the internet, people will easily come up with 4-5 hours of minimum wage pay in a month to cover the cost of the thing they use many times a day.
  - SoftTalker 9mo ago
    I don't use AI for anything in my private life, only at work. And I can't really imagine what it could do for me. In no scenario am I paying a monthly subscription for it.
    - WarmWash 9mo ago
      I know someone who doesn't have a smart phone
  - superb_dev 9mo ago
    I don’t know how this can be true when almost everyone I know is struggling right now
    - ddtaylor 9mo ago
      Two tier economy
wasmainiac 9mo ago
Wait how? Show your work. I still see at least a $600bn gap. > Something they find as indispensable as a cell phone or internet bill. Source?
- wasmainiac 9mo ago
  Why not reply than just downvote? Seems cowardly.
ranguna 9mo ago
500,000,000*80=40,000,000,000 40,000,000,000/650,000,000,000=0.06 If I understood you correctly and my math is correct, your suggestions only cover 6% of 650 billion, the news is suggesting AI companies need more than 10x more. So either it's 5 billion people paying 60-80, or 500 million people paying 600-800/month, or something in between + a little extra.
- richrichardsson 9mo ago
  Isn't the 650 billion required per year, so the monthly cost is automatically 12x
  - ranguna 9mo ago
    You're right! But we're still short on 26%
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- WarmWash 9mo ago
  The payback period would be 5-10 years at those prices($60-$80/mo), which is pretty normal.
9cb14c1ec0 9mo ago
No, they won't be. Inference costs will continue to drop, and subscription prices will follow as AI is increasingly commoditized. There are 6 different providers in the top 10 models on openrouter. In a commoditized market, there will be no $60/month subscriptions.
- therealdrag0 9mo ago
  Which is good right?

It tells you that 500 million people will be paying $60-$80/mo for AI. Something they find as indispensable as a cell phone or internet bill. The numbers actually work really well, (un)fortunately.

anonymous908213 9mo ago

I don't know how you can write down those numbers and come to the conclusion they sound reasonable at all. Corporations literally can't give this trash away for free without consumers being unhappy about it (eg. the Copilot malware infesting every aspect of Windows). ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat interface, when all potential applications for actually improving their lives are failing badly? I think you are out of touch with the finances of non-tech-indsutry workers if you think they will.

jgalt212 9mo ago
> ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat Even if these things worked great for everyone, the percent of free uses who convert to paid users is low single digits per cent. For OpenAI to have any chance of breaking even in the consumer space, they need to develop an ad biz that makes around 20-25% of G does. That's a tall order in that G doesn't make good dough from search anymore as SERP page clicks are down 80% with AI summaries being good enough for most.
- lopis 9mo ago
  And let's not forget that for the bubble to sustain itself, people would currently use different LLMs would need to create a separate account in each one. There's absolutely no way most people will be paying more than one LLM unless they have a lot of disposable income.
WarmWash 9mo ago
I don't know a single person in my (non-tech!) life that doesn't use AI, shy of toddlers and geriatric people. The famous MIT study (95% of AI initiatives fail, remember that one?) actually found that pretty much every worker was using AI almost daily, but used their personal accounts (hence the corporate ones not being used). If you are brand new to the tech world, and this is your first new product cycle, the way it works is that there is a free-cool-we're-awesomely-generous phase, and then when you are hooked and they are entrenched, the real price comes to fruition. See...pretty much every tech start-up burning runway cash. Right now they are getting us hooked, and like the dumbasses consumers are, they will become totally dependent and think it will stay this cheap.
- enraged_camel 9mo ago
  A good way to think about it is that ChatGPT is well on its way to becoming a verb like Google did. Doesn't roll off the tongue as easily but in terms of brand awareness it feels ubiquitous.
- hattmall 9mo ago
  I use AI frequently. I am frequently let down. Occasionally satisfied and very rarely impressed. My results seem typical for everyone else I know. It's a free and widely promoted tool that has the potential to be useful, of course people will use it. The features I find most useful, is not providing me new knowledge. It's formalizing something I wrote or summarizing some other text, that I am going to read anyway or can at least reference as needed and confirm the output. This is also where the local models Excel. I also often see people post AI generated advice and answers that are simply incorrect in Facebook groups and get roasted with 100s of people chiming in on how you can trust ChatGPT. I just can't see regular people are going to pay more than (NetFlix + HBO + Prime + WM+) for an AI subscription. I think you would see tons of competitors pop up if that were at all viable.
- hunterpayne 9mo ago
  > actually found that pretty much every worker was using AI almost daily What they found is that people search the Internet for things and an AI bot is right there. What they didn't find is people using Vibe coded apps, learning from AI or buying AI services. They did find companies buying AI services, but as an experiment. Also, blaming AI is easy when someone messes up and costs a customer or sale. The more that happens, the sooner the company stops experimenting. If that happens in a widespread way, then this bubble collapses.
keybored 9mo ago
> I don't know how you can write down those numbers and come to the conclusion they sound reasonable at all. Half this board is in the most hyped echo chamber I’ve ever seen.
therealdrag0 9mo ago
Just like all feemium, it’s supported by power users. I pay for gpt myself, and my work pays for Copilot, GPT, Claude, cursor, Glean, and other enterprise tools. And we make enterprise tools on top of AI that our customers pay extra for. Averaging the revenue over headcount isn’t the right model, anymore than it would be for RIOT games or YouTube.

jgalt212 9mo ago

fair enough, but the consumer is already stretched. So where is this $60-80 per month X 500MM consumers coming from?

WarmWash 9mo ago
Consumer spending is strong and growing, don't listen to dregs milking upvotes on the internet, people will easily come up with 4-5 hours of minimum wage pay in a month to cover the cost of the thing they use many times a day.
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  I don't use AI for anything in my private life, only at work. And I can't really imagine what it could do for me. In no scenario am I paying a monthly subscription for it.
  - WarmWash 9mo ago
    I know someone who doesn't have a smart phone
- superb_dev 9mo ago
  I don’t know how this can be true when almost everyone I know is struggling right now
  - ddtaylor 9mo ago
    Two tier economy

wasmainiac 9mo ago

Wait how? Show your work. I still see at least a $600bn gap. > Something they find as indispensable as a cell phone or internet bill. Source?

wasmainiac 9mo ago
Why not reply than just downvote? Seems cowardly.

ranguna 9mo ago

500,000,000*80=40,000,000,000 40,000,000,000/650,000,000,000=0.06 If I understood you correctly and my math is correct, your suggestions only cover 6% of 650 billion, the news is suggesting AI companies need more than 10x more. So either it's 5 billion people paying 60-80, or 500 million people paying 600-800/month, or something in between + a little extra.

richrichardsson 9mo ago
Isn't the 650 billion required per year, so the monthly cost is automatically 12x
- ranguna 9mo ago
  You're right! But we're still short on 26%
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
WarmWash 9mo ago
The payback period would be 5-10 years at those prices($60-$80/mo), which is pretty normal.

9cb14c1ec0 9mo ago

No, they won't be. Inference costs will continue to drop, and subscription prices will follow as AI is increasingly commoditized. There are 6 different providers in the top 10 models on openrouter. In a commoditized market, there will be no $60/month subscriptions.

therealdrag0 9mo ago
Which is good right?