Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

They've NEVER profited off anything they've ever done. Open AI and the other frontier AI companies operate at a (INCREDIBLY HUGE) deficit!

Their entire business model requires them to grow by like 20x AND lower their costs to 1/20th where they are now (or something like that, not those exact numbers). If they can't do that, they literally will not be able to pay their bills in a few years.

It's a house of cards predicated on the assumption one company will dominate a huge new market AND get their costs way down, and THEN they will make huge profits for years on that market. If that doesn't happen, the subprime mess will look like child's play compared to what happens to the frontier companies (and likely the rest of the economy with them).

This was a terrible comment, and it absolutely deserved to be down-voted into oblivion ... but for what it's worth Anonymous Coward, you made me laugh.

It absolutely can ... it's just that when you ask it to do so:

• 30% of the time you'll get a simple correct answer
• 30% of the time you'll get a 10-page dissertation of the answer
• 30% of the time you'll get either a dissertation or one line ... that's wrong
• 10% of the time it will answer "they were talking shit" with no further explanation.

It's not quite *that* simple.

In OSS, *anyone* can fork the code. If it was as simple as "the original creator is doing stupid/terrible things", everyone involved could fork and start contributing to the fork (anyone ever hear of a little database called MySQL ... which is now more popularly known as MariaDB?)

But this isn't just about OSS code, it's about the corporation. It's that corporation that is the root of the entire problem.

I know A LOT about what's wrong with Matt. I have heard absolutely nothing about what is wrong with the board (other than the fact that they left Matt in charge all these years).

Care you enlighten me?

Why is everyone pretending like corporations and AIs are somehow legally shielded? I'm no lawyer, but in the eyes of the law I'm pretty certain a crime is a crime.

It doesn't matter if ACME corp told you to do it or not: if you murder someone (and get caught), you are going to jail ... not ACME. Maybe your boss at ACME also goes to jail for telling you to murder someone, but the point is there's no special legal standard for "well an AI/corporation did it, so we can't prosecute them". THAT IS NOT HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS.

(Now of course we have entire sections of laws just for dealing with corporations: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking above crimes that violate people's rights. If you break into someone's home, assault them, steal from them, murder them, etc. our legal system holds the human(s) involved responsible. Period.)

If you use a provider like OpenRouter you can use any AI on a per-token basis. You can even switch from one to the other with the press of a button (almost).

FWIW, I still pay for a $20/month Claude subscription ... but if that plan didn't work well for me, I could very easily use other AIs at other rates with OpenRouter.

Yes.

Your TV sucks up like 20-25% of its power consumption even when its turned off. Before I even got this TV, I used a device between the TV and the wall, to I turn it off when I'm not using the TV (easy with a smart speaker).

When I am using the TV I use a separate device (Chromecast), not the TV itself, so they can't spy on me through the TV itself. Also, the TV lacks Internet.

Tell me again why getting a cheap TV was a bad thing.

You all are way overthiniking this. FSF is Stallman's organization. Stallman is an extremist by anyone's objective measurement.

Virtually no software, even most OSS software, conforms to Stallman's demands, and his organization tries to push licenses that virtually no one can adopt in practice.

He was once relevant in the free software movement, but now he's just a crazed voice howling into the wind about how everything isn't free enough. Don't try to ascribe sense or logic to him.

There is value to countries in having certain industries, even when the market doesn't agree.

Farming is the classic example: we pay farmers to grow food that then gets thrown away. That's crazy right? we subsidize an un-needed product, a product the market tells us shouldn't exist!

We do it because we want to have a ready and available American source of food, so if a foreign provider decides to stop providing us their food exports, we won't starve. It's 100% socialism (put into law by anti-socialist lawmakers, probably): the government is deliberately messing with the market, for a non-market benefit (preserving local food supplies).

While it's not as strong, there is a similar argument to be made for important non-food products ... like cars.

Why the downvotes here? This is the correct response to everything that Sam Altman claims!

Mods, may I remind you of his quote: "I have no equity in OpenAI. I'm doing this because I love it." Later financial disclosures and admissions revealed that he held substantial equity through third-party venture cap.

Or when (confronted by his board members that he was secretly telling different people conflicting stories to get board member Helen Toner pushed out), Altman claimed:"I never said that." ... and then an extensive 70-page review paper with preserved Slack messages, emails, and internal HR records proved Altman had indeed made those exact statements (leading the board to do take the incredibly rare step of firing him from his own company)?

Or have you forgotten that under oath this exchange occurred (the subject isn't some random person, it's Altman's own co-founder):

“You told the board that Altman ‘exhibits a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his execs and pitting his execs against one another’,” Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo asked Sutskever.

“Yes,” Sutskever responded.

Altman is a habitual liar, and we SHOULD laugh at his bullshit claims.