• [deleted]@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Also the vast majority of people don’t get any benefit from LLMs and won’t be willing or able to afford the actual cost to use them.

    Hell, I would be surprised if the majority of people used AI for anything digital assistants or web searches were doing successfuly before they were replaced with AI bullshit.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Yes, certainly! It’s hilarious to me that people think the market broadly adopting a FREE product is somehow indicative of its economic viability. You just have to look at the journalism to see the chasm between use and profitability. And LLM’s, unlike almost every other form of modern software-based technology, does not scale. When Facebook doubles their user base, they double their revenue stream, at a fraction of a cost of exanding their costs. But when an LLM doubles its user base, it also doubles its costs.

      AI is not a monopolizable product like Facebook, nor a locked-in key infrastructure ecosystem like Microsoft. It is a commodity, like toilet paper or oil or crackers. Anyone can enter the market to compete with you. No company will ever “own” AI–at least not this iteration of it.

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Not even adopting really. Theyre shoehorning it in everywhere. When it’s a simple button in your chat app or search then of course people will use it. But they certainly aren’t going to pay for it.