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.

LG allows you to revoke consent to terms and policies. When you revoke consent you lose access to features, including up to all smart features.

You must accept terms of service to basically do anything, but you can for instance revoke all microphone consent and avoid any concerns of your audio being sent to LG.

Still a shitty company for putting ads on a $3000 tv.

What where they rooted the tv then said "sEe LoOk WhAt ThE tV iS cApAbLe Of!!!ii!11". At no point did they actually prove LG TVs indeed spy on you. I believe they do, but this video does not provide an inch of proof.

The video is a joke if you actually want to waste an hour of your life.

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.

I did not make the cut. At least now I will not be alone

Get off my lawn bro

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.
 

Not real. I never had 110 open and outlook would use the ssl port.

Bailout incoming

Everyone is gonna suffer when the merry go round stops

The ROI is at the nation-state level. The ones who benefit are the rich and powerful in control right now. The reason it is being gatekept is to give the elite the power now that will be harder to wrestle from later.

Spectre offers 55 and 77 inch screens that are dumb panels but have all the bells and whistles of newer panels (hdr, interpolation, etc). The 55in was $200 when I got it, the 77in was stupid dumb, like $450

Got this message for months and could not figure out what it was. Ended up fully power cycling an LG tv and the suspicious traffic went away. Child launched an app and the traffic came back. LG allows backgrounding apps but they get evicted quite easily due to limited resources. Well the app was a 4MB app that used so little resources it never got evicted. Now I see this post and it just furthers the point, do not connect devices to your network you do not trust. In my case I thought I was safe because it was on its own locked down VLAN, but nope. Now they are all going through proxies

"Anonymous source(s) reportedâ¦" is how they legally get away with lying. They all do it. Anyone still relying on mass media is fooling themselves. Best to watch the people making the claims say it directly from their mouths. And not snippets or sound bites, the entirety of their speeches, interviews, and statements.

I saw an article talking about how Americans are surprised they are not able to claim the new tax deductions on their recent car purchase because they didnâ(TM)t read the fine print of the big beautiful bill. They simply listened to the talking points and said "bae, if we buy a car we get $10k back" or "yeah all my tips are tax free!!". But if they had read the bill they would have understood the shortcomings. CNN is not going to tell you that. Fox News isnâ(TM)t going to tell you that. Best to go to the source. New media was saying this but even then it's just snippets and likely goes too far the other way.

Gotta go to the source, those that don't will be doomed.