> they make a ton of money on inference
So it is stated, but is it actually true? I am not convinced.
Besides, it's not as if they can suddenly stop training models, the moment you do that you've spelled a death sentence for profitablity because Google and open source will very quickly undercut a 15 year break even timeline.
Agreed, the revenues are big.. but very small next to the datacenter bills.. even if a fraction of which are being used for inference, it's hard to argue they even break even. That's before all the other costs (Super Bowl ads, billions in compensation).
It's widely reported and acknowledged as true.
Well, the only people with any ability to acknowledge it have a massive incentive to do so, and I've been around the block enough times to know that startups will use every trick in the book to paint a rosy financial picture, even when it's extremely misleading or occasionally just straight up lies. In the current climate of AI hype my skepticism is even greater.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Where and by who? Critical context missing here.
Dario Amodei @ 18:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcqQ1ebBqkc&t=1088s
The CEO hyping his product and the viability of his business during an interview with Stripe does not, at least to me, qualify as “widely reported and acknowledged”
[dead]