That would be 1.4M users worth $1000 each in a timeframe short enough to make a profit and not find a better investment. They must be counting on that 1.4M users being worth $10000 each or more on a longer time frame. Good luck. You can only sell so many hallucinations.
It's actually worse than that... your calculation is off by three orders of magnitude. 1.4B users, not 1.4M.
It doesn't matter how much he spends on infrastructure, at some point he has to charge people more or cut his costs to run these models.
At a trillion dollars a year they'd need to increase the cost by a factor of more than 4 and increase the paid user count to 1/8th of the entire planetary population just to cover capital spending. If you charged corporate America $30k a year for each employee made redundant by AI you would need to replace ~20% of the entire productive US workforce to cover just those costs.
A million little girls want a pony.
Oddly enough, buying ponies for those million little girls would cost less around 1% of the proposed annual spend here. You could also buy a backhoe for a million little boys for another couple of percent or so.
You are correct. In your uninformed opinion those are reasonable assumptions. You don't know, you assume. What is clear or obvious from someone who has NEVER met me, isn't so clear if you have.
I've been addicted to drugs, had to dumpster dive, even sleeping in a park.
Meanwhile, the poor today have all their needs met, if they can manage a few simple steps. They can even have servants bring them food at all hours from a cornucopia of cuisines from around the world. In minutes.
Let me put it to you this way, why do people go to the gym? Because their life is easy, they have to "work out". Working out is "struggle" so you don't end up weak.
I have more scars (real and mental) than you can even imagine. What you think you know, is your own problem, not mine. I don't judge you, except for your stated biases. You're a bigot, you just don't know it.
There are LOTS of specialized niche forms of business that AI can do to a certain degree. Often as well as, or better than, people. (Remember, LLMs are only one facet of AI, though a very publicized one.) More usually, at least right now, the AI can only do a part of the job better than people, and totally can't handle another part. But that means you need fewer people.
OTOH, expect most AI applications to fail. That was what happened when computers first started to be widely applied. But the ones we remember are the successes.
"Corporate America" typically has non-management advancement tracks. When I worked for Siemens, engineers were well compensated, senior engineers were more well compensated, and principal engineers made more than the managers they grudgingly agreed to work for.
The Welsh Version of Newspeak is just English.
Pretty sure that whatever it is, it involves some translation of Fuck the English.
There are literally thousands of capable jet engines on the open market. Are they new? No. Do they have to be? Also no. Can you generate electricity way more cheaply and efficiently using other methods? Yes.
This is another junk headline for a problem that does not exist.
I always thought that pressing those thousands of old turbojets just sitting in storage into service for backup generators would be a good idea rather than junking them. All it would take would be one enterprising CEO to start snatching them up and when word got out, there would suddenly be a run on boneyards everywhere.
I'll agree that it's fiction created by an AI (probably), but not that it's what it meant by slop. Not unless it's very carelessly done.
What it *is* is AI generated deceptive advertising.
I'm sorry your co-workers have dysfunctional families. But they will move away to different places to find work, so they won't be near you to give support.
... it'll be a PC, then?
Sorry, but that's not a general truth, and the deduction that "such that we wanted to have kids, sex would suck" is neither justified not justifiable. Many people *do* want to have kids. Sufficiently so that they even adopt them.
You're part right. Yes, "You really have to enjoy kids for their own sake to make it a net lifetime benefit", but that's not sufficient. In modern society it's *going* to be a net cost, and not a small one. And if you don't spend much time with them, the benefits necessarily decrease.
FWIW, it was discovered in India in the 1950's that giving a village a TV would decrease the birth rate. Alternative choices of activity are important factors.
It's not just that. In the past kids were only a slight economic cost. They were only a slight opportunity cost. And they were the support for when you became too elderly to work.
None of those are true anymore.
Nothing on TV these days comes close.
Try Bluey. Seriously. It's a parenting show disguised as a children's show.
...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.
