> I think everyone has known that inference is profitable overall for the major providers for a while
A lot of AI haters like Ed Zitron and their readers have refused to update on this. I don't know if any of them have yet, but it'll take a year or two for the idea to fully filter out of their podcasts anyway.
Ed Zitron is a professional apocalypse predictor. Which is to say he's always wrong.
Seems a bit of a disingenuous framing. Most of the arguments I see are some mix of
1. Their figures have been pretty dodgy or excluded training costs so why is it trustworthy this time?
2. API inference charged at a profitable level rather than heavily subsidised subscriptions means everyone tightens up their usage + governance Which we very much saw with the rise of openrouter et al.
Personally I think there's a lot of the bait and switch of 2 when people talk about profitability of the 10-20% of API usage for Anthropic while also wanting to lump in subsidised chat users as if they're profitable too.
I think we know if it was this clear cut then the behaviours of companies would be wildly different and more consistent with profitability.
There are thoughtful versions of these arguments, sure. There are also thoughtless versions, and it's not disingenuous to note it.
It's not actually clear that subscription users are unprofitable as a group (and the group level is the only important one).
We do know the companies are not currently profitable, because they're open and intentional about that, but that tells us nothing about their margins without infrastructure buildout and investment in training.