So let me get this straight, these AI companies have precisely 0 products and services, ZERO source of revenue apart from grants and outside investors? Whats the idea here exactly?
Every modern company starts off with heavy debt to investors, the idea is to eventually be profitable and return that money
what are you talking aboutthey've had products for several years
The idea is to keep investing in each other's companies in a circular loop to artificially raise your stock price until the market bubble pops and the stooge you installed in the oval office will bale you out so you can try again.>>84629373Maybe but it's not a *good* idea or a sustainable method of capitalism.>>84629381Not nearly at any level for them to recoup the billions they've spent, let alone turn a profit
>>84629362it's supposed to be so over the top and revolutionizing that it's worth the money basically, since youre gonna be able to create super intelligent agents to work in all fields i agree with that personally its already pretty impressive
>>84629400This isn't new at all so yes it's sustainable.
>>84629362my dad pays Elon $30 a month to post videos on facebookif I had spare money, I'd pay to have whatever claude tier that has claude code. not for programming, but for research shit, very few research related promt eats out everything. deepseek and shiet aren't as goodI don't have to spend an hour justifying and explaining myself, few few keywords gets AI the context needed to understand things and I can look into core of any topic and find relevant research to read
>>84629415Doesn't make sense because it's not the super intelligent engineers that make companies billions, it's the shitty retail worker that works for $11 an hour that they can turn a profit on.The US economy is primarily service based: you don't need a PhD to flip a burger or teach a 5th grader. If the cost of using an AI or a FUCKING ROBOT (which it most certainly will be for the next several decades for robots at least) is more expensive than hiring some idiot, it will never be profitable. Even if you were to assume there's some breakthrough in quantum computing that can be easily scaled or that Moore's law isn't reaching it's limit in the next decade, a revolution in computing would require you to replace ALL the hardware infrastructure AI companies have been investing so heavily in. So essentially they would need another 100s of billions of dollars out of thin air every decade for any chance of success. Doesn't matter if AI can make 100000 geniuses, it's not geniuses that keep the economy spinning
>>84629439Just because it's not new doesn't mean it's sustainable...What's new is the level of investment going on now with the knowledge that it's very unlikely for it to ever turn a profit
AI can't even make a burger.
>>84629442And this is exactly why it will never be profitable. The explosive growth phase has already happened. The people who can afford AI subscriptions (where 75 of openais profit arise from for example) already have it. AI isn't going to spawn in new subscription holders by thinking them into existence with a super intelligent GPT model. They will have to lean more heavily into tokenization and API integration, but that is highly speculative and unlikely to surpass their primary revenue source (subscriptions), and requires them to continue operating at a loss of roughly >$3 for every $1 they earn for the foreseable future...
