The compute cost for DeepSeek V3 was $5.6M. Training costs for traditional US frontier labs model is about $70 to $200M+, with estimates of up to $1B+ to train the next generation models. It's expensive, but it's not even in the ballpark of "There is no viable economic model to do so." Google revenue in Q2 was $1.32 billion *per day*. $1B is trivially less than a day; $5.6M is just 6 minutes of revenue.

The cost problem is in the compute buildout and the subsidized compute to capture users.

> It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable,

I presume we can stipulate there exists some tasks that are cheaper to do using an LLM than doing it "by hand". As a such, using an LLM model can be profitable. To me, it is also obvious that the business of serving an LLM model can be profitable. There's large benefits to being able to get tokens quickly, and you can expect people to pay for that, even if we presume they could run the model locally with no maintenance overhead. There's even cases where using the cloud is cheaper than you can serve locally at all - I saw one guy that measured his added cost of electricity when his computer ran a specific LLM, and it was more expensive to run it locally than to buy tokens from the cheapest inference provider for the same model, presumably because they had better hardware and cheaper electricity.

I love a term a friend of mine used to use when talking about AI: "Narrowly superhuman" (before "superintelligence" got to be a thing).

AI is narrowly superhuman. It is able to do specific things that used to be defined as a "hallmark of intelligence" much better than a human. The easiest one? Summing numbers. It's both faster and more precise than a human.

AI gets more and more such areas it can do better than a human.

If we define "Superintelligent" to be "A computer system able to do absolutely everything we can somehow call intelligence better than any human", we will *never* have superintelligence. The things we define as intelligence will be in conflict; we'll land at the system being better at one at the cost of another.

I'm in favor with being careful about this development. But "prohibiting the development of superintelligence" isn't an option. It's already here.

Dividing the yearly US spend on Internet advertising by the number of people in the US that has Internet access gives $900-$970 spend per person per year, or $75-$81 per month.

Please choose the option you want:

1. I want to pay about $75 per month per member in my family into the ad auctions to not see any ads. Ie, keep the infrastructure, but let you opt to pay your share through money rather than attention.
2. I want to prohibit ads, and accept that everybody will have to pay for the sites they want access to, that there will be much fewer services, that there will be much higher transaction costs, and that the poor will have much less ability to access services. (Microtransactions won't solve this, due to the need for trust evaluation of same.)
3. I want some combination of 1 and 2, where some sides of ads are prohibited so it is possible to buy my way out of them at a lower price,. I accept that this will result in the loss of some services and lower access to others for the poor.
4. I want legislation that makes Internet ad blockers work more consistently. I accept that this just shifts the attention cost to other people, and have me getting the benefit without paying the cost.
5. I want to remove Internet ads and subsidize the sites through taxes.
6. I want to increase the requirements of Trust and Safety checks and format restrictions for ads, potentially accepting higher overhead (in what goes to content vs infrastructure) for less annoying/bad ads. I accept that doing this creates significant advantages of scale for ad networks.
7. Other, please describe, including where costs gets shifted with your proposal.

The above are my best attempt at listing possible options and their correct caveats. In most situations, I find ads annoying (who doesn't). Unfortunately, they are the main money highway of Internet content.

DISCLOSURE: I used to work for Google, where I rang infrastructure for stopping bad ads/advertisers and for removing fake clicks. I've also been interested at the use of sub-cent microtransactions to pay for content since the 1990s, though I've become disillusioned as I've learned more about the attention economics involved. Approving individual microtransactions has a higher attention cost than dealing with the ads, and bulking them per-site (through micro-subscriptions) will limit the number of sites that can have content.

OK, which particular aspect of the LLM learning do you think doesn't exist in the human brain? Backprop exists (and the other training methods the brain uses has similar effects), embeddings more or less exists and seems to be very similar to the LLM embeddings (shown by brain activation in various areas linearly matching with embeddings) - see e.g. High-level visual representations in the human brain are aligned with large language models (Adrien Doerig et al, 2025), and speech/text generation by humans has similar error patterns as for LLMs.

They obviously don't learn in the EXACT same way, but there's also clearly a lot of bits that are the same, and I'm fairly sure nobody knows how much is similar yet, particularly not weighted by importance.
 

Your dumbfuckery is self debunking, stalking McCarthyite cocksucker. All fresh corpses, found next to donated Russian rations or with their hands tied behind their backs with white armbands used to signify non-aggression to Russian forces. You're only highlighting your shit for brains when the CIA adjacent WaPo has told you of Nazi death squads and Bucha fits their MO. Nazis who are collapsing on all fronts and your cope is Russia lost a plane.

Bucha was a Ukienazi op, stalking McCarthyite cocksucker.

Sorry but it's 2026 and this just means embarrassed conservative.

True.

Biden constantly reached out to conservatives

Because Biden could out-conservative any five Republicans combined.

He appointed a very moderate AG

"Moderate" also just means "embarrassed conservative."

even with the very obviously illegal Mar-A-Lago documents

Bzzt! Sitting presidents have total declassification powers. Trump could take and unilaterally declassify anything he wanted, period. And Trump did work with the Feds to secure them in a locked room in a residence with around the clock secret service protection. Now do VP Biden storing classified documents all over unsecured places, and Hillary with her illegal email server. Which she set up just two years after savaging the Bush Administration for using private email.

You've over simplifying some very complicated things.

Nothing about this is remotely complicated. At all.

I have zero love for America or Israel, but Iran has been a globally very dangerous shithole since its move to a theocracy in 1979 and it's rule by a single supreme leader.

Which is still all your fault for overthrowing their secular democracy in 1953. Go yell at a mirror.

The threat it posed goes far beyond Israel

Iran hasn't attacked another country for centuries.

which is why largely most of the world banded together to prevent those lunatics from developing their nuclear program.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. YOU are the lunatic necon.

Pearl Harbor was a very surgical strike. And you wouldn't have your head up there if Russia or China struck DC and kidnapped the American president.

That's your Baghdad Bob cope for Russia utterly dominating AFU on the battlefield? At least it's a change from the other NAFO bots claiming Russia is about to lose because (checks notes) Ukraine managed to disable a single oil tanker.

LOL so you only had to go back over a couple hundred years to find a single example of Russia "winning" without American help.

No you dumb fuck. That was just the biggest war you had zero involvement in. Russia has won most of their wars without your dumbass, like when they took 9% of Finland.

russia needs to rely on nuclear weapons or nobody will take it the lest bit seriously.

They've been utterly dominating your dumbfucked ass with conventional weapons.

russia was utterly dependent on America and the allies for WW2.

Utterly dumbfucked Nazi bullshit. Americans like Truman were quite explicit in wanting Germany to slug it out with the Soviets until both sides lost. You only got in the war when Soviets were in danger of saving Europe not just from Nazis but from capitalism.

The BlueAnon dumbfucker is dumbfucked. Vast majority of protestors were entirely peaceful. Not one firearm taken inside Capitol. 1/6 is just Birtherism for shitlibs, a braindead conspiracy theory for braindead shitheads.

The video is the source, dumbfuck not Tucker Carlson. Your defense is to shove your head up your ass so you don't see whats right in front of your nose?

Laughing at your incompetent mendacity in Napolean, who also got his ass kicked by Russia, also without your help. You barely did anying in WWII; Russia did over 80% of the work of beating the Nazis, show some respect.

Even with Trump's help, russia will lose this one too.

Nothing can beat Russia short of nuclear weapons, but then the whole planet is dead you dumb fuck.

Election wasn't delayed and people went home in a couple of hours. It was a Boomer parade, not a coup - which is what many of them were literally charged with, illegal parading Only person killed was a protestor shot by a cop for no reason. You're a million megatons of incompetent BlueAnon bullshit.

1/6 was no more an insurrection than 9/8 was you dumb fuck.