• 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    reminder than during 2019 there were streaming services popping left and right, all showing tremendous growth because they started from zero, and articles were about how bad Netflix was doing due to having practically no growth compared with the competition (they already had a massive subscriber base). Twist? Netflix was the only streaming service that was actually making a profit, the rest were a massive loss but big growth.

    Needless to say most of those streaming services died; who remembers DC streaming service, or Yahoo’s? While Netflix is basically as stong as ever, despite the prevalent enshitification happening through the whole industry.

    Point of the story? shareholders don’t care about stable profitable business, only cancerous growth. AI is like that, zero profits, ton of cost, but as long as they show growth the shareholders are happy, regardless of how cooked the books are.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      2019 Yahoo

      My immediate thought, there is no way Yahoo! Screen survived into 2019.

      I looked it up and Yahoo! Screen (which featured Community season 6) was shutdown in January 2016. But Yahoo! View launched in late 2016 (as a Hulu-like replacement), and that did shutter in mid 2019.

      So Yahoo! was already dead, but it also died for real in 2019.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      who remembers DC streaming service, or Yahoo’s?

      Quibi will always have a place in my heart. Or, at least, my golden arm

  • Cornpop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    18 days ago

    What is the actual “cost” after they buy the hardware, is that $1000 really pure power usage cost?

    • HereIAm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      I’m curious as well. My knowledge is probably quite outdated, but from what I understood the training part is what’s expensive and then querying the model is pretty cheap. Is it still true (or was it ever) that the generated answers on search engines are cheaper to generate than the actual search results?

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 days ago

        I find that hard to believe, I recently had to uninstall co-pilot after it weaseled its way into my search bar. Its not an exageration to say that my PC literally ran cyberpunk 2077 with pathtracting better than it ran the fucking windows search bar with co-pilot.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          That’s just a shitty front end interface implementation, it has nothing to do with the actual inference run by the models.

        • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 days ago

          Look at the public numbers, it seems true. Copilot on your taskbar is just windows being garbage, not the AI being bad. Just look at self-hosted AI and measure the power costs of your queries. It’s tiny.

      • Shteou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 days ago

        It is sorta. Training is orders of magnitudes more intensive than inference, but we infer billions of times within a model generation.

  • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    18 days ago

    Trust me bro we’re so close to profitability bro, just need this IPO to secure funding one last time bro then we’ll be profitable bro I swear.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      $1000 I would guess. They are just burning money at this point.

  • nullspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    I can’t imagine paying for AI when the open source tools have made it so easy to set up a model locally.

    • ranzispa@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 days ago

      Easy to set up, but still needs a 15k $ graphics card and electricity bill. The price you pay openai/anthropic is much cheaper than that for that quality of model.

      Sure, you can setup a small model on a consumer graphics card, but the output will be considerably worse and the processing speed considerably lower.

      For 240€/year you got a subscription to anthropic which will happily ingest a whole repository and process it in about one minute. No matter what latest model GPU you installed on your computer, you won’t be able to do that.

      Sure, this guy was able to run a 26B model on an old CPU: https://point.free/blog/gemma-4-on-a-2016-xeon/

      But that was not easy at all and the speed you get is definitely not the same as the one provided for a very cheap price.

      • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        There is a middle ground. Crypto farmers have transitioned into running AI workloads for money. There are things sort of like folding@home but you can let people use your GPU and you earn tokens which are used to buy compute or sold to people who want to buy compute on the network. So you can setup a bigass open source model for private on demand use it’s still not cheap but a lot closer to reality for a lot of people than a 15k initial purchase.