Friends of mine working in AI companies are saying we’ll be lucky if they only triple. More like 10-20x long term, especially for enterprise

▲

riskable 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This assumes that these companies aren't going to use smaller providers or hosting models themselves. THAT is the great big assumption going into all the Big AI funding.

I think it's a very, very bad assumption. After trying GLM-5 and Qwen3 on Ollama Cloud, not only were they faster than OpenAI's offerings (by a huge amount) it was just as good if not better at doing what I asked of it.

Claude Code is still superior to anything else but GLM-5 and Qwen3 are easily just as good as GPT-5.X (for coding).

▲

mrweasel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, I read it as the number of subscribers would triple, but you're suggesting the price will?

That makes a little more sense, because the number of subscribers are so low that tripling won't really make much difference in terms of turning a profit.

▲

Bombthecat 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's for companies to replace people. Works out ok for them. Even four times isn't that much

▲

ef3dfd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Its simply not going to happen. People like Nadella call it 'tacit knowledge' - the reality is the work people do is much broader than what is producible by LLMs alone. Without the human, there is no work done. Unlike classic machinery, LLMs are not comparable in that you cant simply reduce labour input by X and be fine. Sure in the short term the consequences will not show up, but in the long term they will.

Altman and co. get down on their knees and pray that proposition is only transitory in the short run.

LLMs wont disappear, but they wont be large profit generators either. Especially not so whilst there is fierce competition and every dollar of profit is re-invested. The value of an asset is derived upon its potential cash return, net of reinvestment, taxes et al.

Altman is hoping to survive long enough to finance R&D to figure out how to encode the entirety of what humans do, to be able to come good on the asinine aspirations he has put forth that justify its valuation. But it will end in disaster.

▲

Bombthecat 2 days ago | parent [-]

Of course there will be humans, just way less of them.

Instead of ten, you just need two or three

	▲	ef3dfd 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You haven't put forward a compelling argument besides fluff. This is so surface level and boring. Most of you aren't really clued up on subject areas like Finance to talk about this stuff frankly. As long as a firm is beating its cost of capital, it will reinvest money to generate more growth. What does that mean? Oh. Hiring more people.

▲

duped 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

People working in AI companies are the last people I'd trust on price forecasting