this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
260 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
64101 readers
8218 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are losing money on their 200$ subscriber plan afaik. These "goalposts" are all saying the same thing.
It is a dead end because of the way it's being driven.
You brought up 100 billion by 2030. There's no revenue, and it's not useful to people. Saying there's some speculated value but not showing that there's real services or a real product makes this a speculative investment vehicle, not science or technology.
Small research projects and niche production use cases aren't 100b. You aren't disproving it's hypetrain with such small real examples.
I appreciate the more substantial reply.
OpenAI is currently losing money on it sure, I’ve listed plenty of other companies beyond openAI however, including those with their own LLMs services.
GenAI is not solely 100b nor ChatGPT.
I’ve repeatedly shown and linked services and products in this thread.
This alone I think makes it pretty clear your position isn’t based on any rational perspective. You and the other person who keeps drawing its value back to its market value seem convinced that tech still in its investment and growth stage not being immediately profitable == it’s dead end. Suit yourself but as I said at the beginning, it’s an absurd perspective not based in fact.
If it doesn't have real revenue, it can't pay for it's carbon footprint and will/should be regulated.
If there's no known way to prevent these models from regurgitating copywrited works if they are trained on those works, how will it not be regulated that way?
Like I said, the way it's driven now. It could be done differently.