3 ms·

> Where are those 99$ coming from? If this isn't a house of cards, AI companies' customers. The companies and individauls ponying up for a Claude subscription

> Where are those 99$ coming from? If this isn't a house of cards, AI companies' customers. The companies and individauls ponying up for a Claude subscription or compute through OpenRouter. Customer financing isn't inherently fucked. It's just highly suspect at the scale Nvidia's doing it. There was another thread where I noted that Nvidia's investments are literally monetarily significant, to the point that I expect them to start being directly referenced in the Fed's beige book [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49673871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49673871

polski-g 1mo ago
Demand for AI inference is infinite. It's coming from the rest of the economy.
- swiftcoder 1mo ago
  Money flowing from the rest of the economy means money no longer being spent on something else. Assuming for the moment it's not all a big circular inflationary scheme, what exactly is being cut back on to fund this infinite spend on AI inference?
  - ajb 1mo ago
    Economic activity is a flow, not a stock. There might well be a bubble, but you can't prove it like that.
    - swiftcoder 1mo ago
      > Economic activity is a flow, not a stock Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
      - ajb 1mo ago
        That assumes that their use of AI does not generate cash flow. Trivial example: the ones reselling tokens. You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.
        swiftcoder 1mo ago
        Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source. If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
        ajb 1mo ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole. In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".
- boesboes 1mo ago
  [flagged]

polski-g 1mo ago

Demand for AI inference is infinite. It's coming from the rest of the economy.

swiftcoder 1mo ago
Money flowing from the rest of the economy means money no longer being spent on something else. Assuming for the moment it's not all a big circular inflationary scheme, what exactly is being cut back on to fund this infinite spend on AI inference?
- ajb 1mo ago
  Economic activity is a flow, not a stock. There might well be a bubble, but you can't prove it like that.
  - swiftcoder 1mo ago
    > Economic activity is a flow, not a stock Any one actor has finite cash flow (plus their cash-on-hand buffer). Directing cashflow towards inference necessarily directs it away from something else. Either these companies are spending less on something else, or they are returning less profit.
    - ajb 1mo ago
      That assumes that their use of AI does not generate cash flow. Trivial example: the ones reselling tokens. You can't analyse expenditure assuming income is constant, because all expenditure decisions will be made with a view to how they affect income.
      - swiftcoder 1mo ago
        Token resellers don't change the equation, they are just adding a tax to the revenue stream, it still has to flow from an actual upstream source. If your argument is that a bunch of consumer-facing companies are collectively suddenly making trillions more in revenue due to adopting AI... well, I have a pretty nice bridge for sale here
        ajb 1mo ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that's a case you have to make, not one you can just derive from an accounting identity. Also it doesn't have to be increased revenue- it can be reduced costs. This is more likely to be their motivation. Of course, it's one that may be more problematic for the economy as a whole. In general, political discussion suffers a lot from far too much of it being simply "I am obviously right, you are an idiot and/or malicious if you believe the other guy". This is not a dig at you personally, look at any political discussion and you will see that 99% of it is like that. Our public sphere would be in better condition if more people pushed back on it. So no, I don't think anyone should accept "proof by ridicule/slur".
boesboes 1mo ago
[flagged]