30 karma · joined July 30, 2025
I cannot reproduce this on 27. I think writers should undertake some degree of wider research before making strong, universal claims.
If someone says “I think x should stop because of y”. It is a valid argumentative response to say “y also occurs with z, so should z also stop?”. It is argumentatively revealing either hypocrisy, or that the original imperative relies on additional, unstated arguments/assumptions/biases.
I’m not sure how people are looking at numbers that show, even if we wipe off the enormous R&D expenditures, they are still in the red for inference + sales/marketing + admin and responding “this seems positive”.
It’s like being a sold a car and being told “well if you ignore the fact it has no engine it’s a good buy” yet it also has no wheels.
> Unless there's an assumption that R&D costs have to forever go up in order to increase revenue, I feel like this shows that the AI industry is actually on a path to profitability in the long term.
There are three futures right, I’ll rank them in order of fantasy -
1. Someone achieves AGI. At that point the economics of an individual company don’t even matter.
2. R&D costs do have to forever continue, because LLMs can be continually iteratively improved. Much like chip development, there is no end in sight, at least not on a near term timescale. If you are not continually at the frontier, customers will use a competitor or open/local alternatives.
3. LLMs reach a plateau of functionality. Further gains are minimal, quality reaches the apex of what the technology permits. In this scenario the hyperscalers have no business because open/local models will rapidly reach that same plateau as well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fce77ba4-6231-4920-9e99-693a6c38e...
The answer would seem to me to be racism – he values Ukrainian lives more than Palestinians and considers non-white citizens in non-democratic countries responsible for their country’s actions, but white citizens of democracies innocent.