• motruck@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 hours ago

    In a gold rush it is better, on average, to sell the shovels then to mine the gold.

  • DevDave@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    AI has sequestered the inventory and future production of memory starting at DDR5 and up. Meta has made an abomination “adapter” to use ddr4 in place of ddr5. They supposedly have backorders to 2030.

    The idiots declared they had discovered fire but instead were merely rubbing two rocks together with such force to make sparks and smoke. A lot of people know they called it to early and are now trying to brute force create AGI.

    AI capital investment is rumored to be over a trillion USD for just 2016. Microsoft has revenue at just under 300 billion. Google’s revenue is around 350 billion. Both of these companies are going to drown when someone finally calls it.

    https://isaiprofitable.com/

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    There’s a lot of reasons;

    1. The people who run these businesses have grown incredibly wealthy by taking investment to grow. They do not need to be profitable
    2. Selling inference is massively profitable. They lose money on model training
    3. If you’re suggesting they build a “product” that is profitable, I would argue that’s a bad idea- it’s a high competition space. The people selling AI are in a much better position
  • L7HM77@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Why does it cost so much to engineer new models? I thought AI can replace software engineers now, shouldn’t the development cost of new models decrease over time?

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Joking aside - I think the whole “engineer time is expensive, computer time is cheap” approach stopped being true half a decade or so before LLMs were a thing. It was kind of self defeating - you’d think companies were trying to increase their usage of computing resources due to some misconception that it’d automatically decrease work humans have to do, saving them money in the long run.

      I don’t have the numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if software/hardware costs exceeded engineering costs for about a decade now, with all these inefficient-on-purpose frameworks and with everything being on the cloud and with using various services for the sake of using a service.

  • Senal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This is exactly the question i ask “investment advisor” services when they call asking if i want help managing investments.

    For you to have a system that works well enough for me to be interested , there’d be no need for you to spend money on call centers full of people ringing up strangers for money, you could take all of that money and invest it in the plan you are trying to sell me.

    • zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’ve always thought that as well. Surely it wouldn’t take them long to become ludicrously wealthy with their top investing acumen.

  • jason@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Been shouting this from the rooftops since the beginning. If it was half as good as claimed, I would NOT have access to it.

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 hours ago

    AI is becoming a pretty big problem where executives are challenging experts or subject matter experts on topics based on their Ai usage. The problem is because the answers sound really good, but often the prompts aren’t quite right so then the experts need to do a bunch more work to explain and justify things that the executives just find rebuttals for through further ai prompting.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Because you need to have idea that people agree to pay money for. AI companies have idea that is selling GPU (nvidia) computer generated chat ( OpenAI, Anthropics ). People don’t really need GPU or computer chat but they are willing to pay for it because they believe it will help them to save time or money by spending time and money using this shit.

    That’s paradox of modern times. We are being sold time spending tools that bring nothing to our lives except turning our heads from the fact that planet is dying.

    • BooBees@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      They’ll announce soon that personal ai assistants require a blood sacrifice to run, on top of the monthly and metered fees.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    If I recall correctly, shovel companies made a lot of money while only a few of their shovels actually struck gold.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Recent scholarship confirms that merchants made far more money than miners during the gold rush.
      The wealthiest man in California during the early years of the rush was Samuel Brannan, a tireless self-promoter, shopkeeper and newspaper publisher. Brannan opened the first supply stores in Sacramento, Coloma, and other spots in the goldfields. Just as the rush began, he purchased all the prospecting supplies available in San Francisco and resold them at a substantial profit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gold_rush

  • eksb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Because it is a scam. Just like the people selling, instead of using:

    • healing crystals
    • essential oils
    • blockchain
    • penis-enlargement pills
    • JIRA