Oh I agree, it will go up. But having lived through the dotcom boom, I’m a bit more skeptical especially when I start seeing “OpenAI unveiled a “Central Park–size complex” in the Texas scrublands and disclosed plans to construct roughly a dozen more of them, a build-out that will cost $1 trillion.” when their revenue just cross $10 billion earlier this year. It’s not a linear growth, sure, but can you cite anything that indicates AI is describing a logarithmic growth rate?
What I’m reading in forecasts indicate a growth of the entire market of somewhere between 2.5 trillion and 4.8 trillion. So building a single data center (That’s just OpenAI, Microsoft, Orcale, etc are also building more) which is planned to cost somewhere over a half to a quarter of the total market grown estimate in 10 years is tech & investors who haven’t learned from history.
Remember that the dotcom’s were convinced that laying fiber across the US was a good bet at $100 billon (around $190 billion today), but it took another decade to actually use that fiber and start recouping the cost.
So sure, there’s growth and it’s likely to continue as products improve. However as an avid tester of narrow ai’s in various paid methods, I can say they are not justifying a doubling or tripling in subscription cost yet. They aren’t yet worth a human in many ways.
(Cite things and argue with me please! I’m happy to be wrong.)
nah, the person you responded too, does not understand that this is a really big hype bubble. The LLM predictive text stuff is really neat, but it cant be applied for anything critical due to always needing a human to double check the LLM output. The investment they are making is delusional megalomaniac billionaires who know they have to bet on the next big thing, but don’t understand what it is either.
This is the digital equivalent of throwing shit (GPUs) at the wall and hoping some will stick. It is possible the infrastructure they are building will be able to be used for something that doesn’t exist yet, but that’s really more thoughts and prayers than actual science.
Not to mention if they keep peddling LLMs as a holy grail they will keep tainting their AI stuff to slow adopters who wont give them another chance, or when LLMs will start causing more deaths per year than cars or smoking.
It’s a pipe dream and a massive gamble. It is late stage capitalism at it’s finest.
You think I dont understand when I just have a different opinion. I read what you think. I dont agree. That doesnt mean I dont understand.
You think this is a hype bubble. Sure, you can think that. Its not a fact. Your perception is your own. Some analysts agree with you, some doesnt. Either way, nobody can actually say if this is a bubble that will pop one day, or if it wont pop and revenues will come.
And you dont have to go into threads talking about me. You clearly dont even understand that its possible to have two different opinions about this and there is no right or wrong answer yet.
Oh I agree, it will go up. But having lived through the dotcom boom, I’m a bit more skeptical especially when I start seeing “OpenAI unveiled a “Central Park–size complex” in the Texas scrublands and disclosed plans to construct roughly a dozen more of them, a build-out that will cost $1 trillion.” when their revenue just cross $10 billion earlier this year. It’s not a linear growth, sure, but can you cite anything that indicates AI is describing a logarithmic growth rate?
What I’m reading in forecasts indicate a growth of the entire market of somewhere between 2.5 trillion and 4.8 trillion. So building a single data center (That’s just OpenAI, Microsoft, Orcale, etc are also building more) which is planned to cost somewhere over a half to a quarter of the total market grown estimate in 10 years is tech & investors who haven’t learned from history.
Remember that the dotcom’s were convinced that laying fiber across the US was a good bet at $100 billon (around $190 billion today), but it took another decade to actually use that fiber and start recouping the cost.
So sure, there’s growth and it’s likely to continue as products improve. However as an avid tester of narrow ai’s in various paid methods, I can say they are not justifying a doubling or tripling in subscription cost yet. They aren’t yet worth a human in many ways.
(Cite things and argue with me please! I’m happy to be wrong.)
nah, the person you responded too, does not understand that this is a really big hype bubble. The LLM predictive text stuff is really neat, but it cant be applied for anything critical due to always needing a human to double check the LLM output. The investment they are making is delusional megalomaniac billionaires who know they have to bet on the next big thing, but don’t understand what it is either.
This is the digital equivalent of throwing shit (GPUs) at the wall and hoping some will stick. It is possible the infrastructure they are building will be able to be used for something that doesn’t exist yet, but that’s really more thoughts and prayers than actual science.
Not to mention if they keep peddling LLMs as a holy grail they will keep tainting their AI stuff to slow adopters who wont give them another chance, or when LLMs will start causing more deaths per year than cars or smoking.
It’s a pipe dream and a massive gamble. It is late stage capitalism at it’s finest.
You think I dont understand when I just have a different opinion. I read what you think. I dont agree. That doesnt mean I dont understand.
You think this is a hype bubble. Sure, you can think that. Its not a fact. Your perception is your own. Some analysts agree with you, some doesnt. Either way, nobody can actually say if this is a bubble that will pop one day, or if it wont pop and revenues will come.
And you dont have to go into threads talking about me. You clearly dont even understand that its possible to have two different opinions about this and there is no right or wrong answer yet.
Sorry to offend you.
This is a classic internet argument paradox. Yes you can argue and have different opinions about subjective matters.
This is objectively a bubble because experts in bubbles say so. Just based on numbers.
You can still hold out hope and belief, but those are subjective and immaterial to this argument.
Here’s a handy schematic. https://lemmy.ca/post/53225771