top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 238 points 3 years ago (8 children)

What a silly article. 700,000 per day is ~256 million a year. Thats peanuts compared to the 10 billion they got from MS. With no new funding they could run for about a decade & this is one of the most promising new technologies in years. MS would never let the company fail due to lack of funding, its basically MS's LLM play at this point.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 113 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    When you get articles like this, the first thing you should ask is "Who the fuck is Firstpost?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    While title is click bite, they do say right at the beginning:

    *Right now, it is pulling through only because of Microsoft's $10 billion funding *

    Pretty hard to miss, and than they go to explain their point, which might be wrong, but still stands. 700k i only one model, there are others and making new ones and running the company. It is easy over 1B a year without making profit. Still not significant since people will pour money into it even after those 10B.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 141 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    There's no way Microsoft is going to let it go bankrupt.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If there's no path to make it profitable, they will buy all the useful assets and let the rest go bankrupt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Microsoft reported profitability in their AI products last quarter, with a substantial gain in revenue from it.

    It won't take long for them to recoup their investment in OpenAI.

    If OpenAI has been more responsible in how they released ChatGPT, they wouldn't be facing this problem. Just completely opening Pandora's box because they were racing to beat everyone else out was extremely irresponsible and if they go bankrupt because of it then whatever.

    There's plenty of money to be made in AI without everyone just fighting over how to do it in the most dangerous way possible.

    I'm also not sure nVidia is making the right decision trying their company to AI hardware. Sure, they're making mad money right now, but just like the crypto space that can dry up instantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    I don’t think you’re right about nvidia. Their hardware is used for SO much more than AI. They’re fine.

    Plus their own AI products are popping off rn. DLSS and their frame generation one (I forget the name) are really popular in the gaming space.

    I think they also have a new DL-based process for creating stencils for silicon photolithography which, in my limited knowledge, seems like a huge deal.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 95 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    That would explain why ChatGPT started regurgitating cookie-cutter garbage responses more often than usual a few months after launch. It really started feeling more like a chatbot lately, it almost felt talking to a human 6 months ago.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I don't think it does. I doubt it is purely a cost issue. Microsoft is going to throw billions at OpenAI, no problem.

    What has happened, based on the info we get from the company, is that they keep tweaking their algorithms in response to how people use them. ChatGPT was amazing at first. But it would also easily tell you how to murder someone and get away with it, create a plausible sounding weapon of mass destruction, coerce you into weird relationships, and basically anything else it wasn't supposed to do.

    I've noticed it has become worse at rubber ducking non-trivial coding prompts. I've noticed that my juniors have a hell of a time functioning without access to it, and they'd rather ask questions of seniors rather than try to find information our solutions themselves, replacing chatbots with Sr devs essentially.

    A good tool for getting people on ramped if they've never coded before, and maybe for rubber ducking in my experience. But far too volatile for consistent work. Especially with a Blackbox of a company constantly hampering its outputs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    As a Sr. Dev, I'm always floored by stories of people trying to integrate chatGPT into their development workflow.

    It's not a truth machine. It has no conception of correctness. It's designed to make responses that look correct.

    Would you hire a dev with no comprehension of the task, who can not reliably communicate what their code does, can not be tasked with finding and fixing their own bugs, is incapable of having accountibility, can not be reliably coached, is often wrong and refuses to accept or admit it, can not comprehend PR feedback, and who requires significantly greater scrutiny of their work because it is by explicit design created to look correct?

    ChatGPT is by pretty much every metric the exact opposite of what I want from a dev in an enterprise development setting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Search engines aren't truth machines either. StackOverflow reputation is not a truth machine either. These are all tools to use. Blind trust in any of them is incorrect. I get your point, I really do, but it's just as foolish as believing everyone using StackOverflow just copies and pastes the top rated answer into their code and commits it without testing then calls it a day. Part of mentoring junior devs is enabling them to be good problem solvers, not just solving their problems. Showing them how to properly use these tools and how to validate things is what you should be doing, not just giving them a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    But what did they expect would happen, that more people would subscribe to pro? In the beginning I thought they just wanted to survey-farm usage to figure out what the most popular use cases were and then sell that information or repackage use-cases as an individual added-value service.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 82 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I mean apart from the fact it's not sourced or whatever, it's standard practice for these tech companies to run a massive loss for years while basically giving their product away for free (which is why you can use openAI with minimal if any costs, even at scale).

    Once everyone's using your product over competitors who couldn't afford to outlast your own venture capitalists, you can turn the price up and rake in cash since you're the biggest player in the market.

    It's just Uber's business model.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The difference is that the VC bubble has mostly ended. There isn't "free money" to keep throwing at a problem post-pan. That's why there's an increased focus on Uber (and others) making a profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago

    In this case, Microsoft owns 49% of OpenAI, so they're the ones subsidizing it. They can also offer at-cost hosting and in-roads into enterprise sales. Probably a better deal at this point than VC cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago

    This is what caused spez at Reddit and Musk at Twitter to go into desperation mode and start flipping tables over. Their investors are starting to want results now, not sometime in the distant future.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 53 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    If AI was so great, it would find a solution to operate at fraction of the cost it does now

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 3 years ago (19 children)

    Wait, has anybody bothered to ask AI how to fix itself? How much Avocado testing does it do? Can AI pull itself up by its own boot partition, or does it expect the administrator to just give it everything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 47 points 3 years ago (4 children)
    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 46 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    huh, so with the 10bn from Microsoft they should be good for... just over 30 years!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 3 years ago* (10 children)

    This article has been flagged on HN for being clickbait garbage.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [+] 41 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [+] 38 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 35 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Pretty sure Microsoft will be happy to come save the day and just buy out the company.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    This article is dumb as shit

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 28 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    A couple of my coworkers will have to write their own code again and start reading documentation

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 27 points 3 years ago (14 children)

    Does it feel like these “game changing” techs have lives that are accelerating? Like there’s the dot com bubble of a decade or so, the NFT craze that lasted a few years, and now AI that’s not been a year.

    The Internet is concentrating and getting worse because of it, inundated with ads and bots and bots who make ads and ads for bots, and being existentially threatened by Google’s DRM scheme. NFTs have become a joke, and the vast majority of crypto is not far behind. How long can we play with this new toy? Its lead paint is already peeling.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 26 points 3 years ago (27 children)

    I don’t understand Lemmy’s hate boner over AI.

    Yeah, it’s probably not going to take over like companies/investors want, but you’d think it’s absolutely useless based on the comments on any AI post.

    Meanwhile, people are actively making use of ChatGPT and finding it to be a very useful tool. But because sometimes it gives an incorrect response that people screenshot and post to Twitter, it’s apparently absolute trash…

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • load more comments (27 replies)
    [–] 21 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    This is alarming...

    One of the things companies have started doing lately is signaling "we could do bankrupt", then jumping ahead a stage on enshittification

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 19 points 3 years ago

    A company that just raised $10b from Microsoft is struggling with $260m a year? That's almost 40 years of runway.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    They are choosing to spend that much. That doesn't suggest that they expect financial problems.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›