this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
769 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1533 readers
166 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] protist@mander.xyz 236 points 4 days ago (9 children)

"I personally chose the price"

Is that how well-run companies operate? The CEO unilaterally decides the price rather than delegating that out to the numbers people they employ?

[–] aviationeast@lemmy.world 94 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Should have asked chatgpt to play the role of a CEO.

[–] Black616Angel@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 4 days ago (3 children)

This answer would be much funnier if that wasn't his fucking plan.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 5 points 2 days ago

jesus fuck how did i never see this before

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rook@awful.systems 82 points 4 days ago (4 children)

A real ceo does everything. Delegation is for losers who can’t cope. Can’t move fast enough and break enough things if you’re constantly waiting for your lackeys to catch up.

If those numbers people were cleverer than the ceo, they’d be the ones in charge, and they aren’t. Checkmate. Do you even read Ayn Rand, bro?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 49 points 4 days ago (3 children)

far, far, far, far, far, far, far fewer business people than you’d expect/guess are data-driven decision makers

and then there’s the whole bayfucker ceo dynamic which adds a whole bunch of extra dumb shit

it’d be funnier if it weren’t for the tunguska-like effect it’s having on human society both at present and in the coming decades to follow :|

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Sam, just add sponsored content. The road to enshittification doesn't have to be long! Make it shitty fast so people can move past it and start hosting their own models for their own usage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago (1 children)

losing money because people are using it more than expected

"I personally chose the price and thought we would make some money."

Big MoviePass energy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] renzev@lemmy.world 67 points 3 days ago (17 children)

Much like uber and netflix, all of these ai chatbots that are available for free right now will become expensive, slow, and dumb once the investor money runs out and these companies have to figure out a business model. We're in the golden age of LLMs right now, all we can do is enjoy the free service while it lasts and try not to make it too much a part of our workflow, because inevitably it will be cut off. Unless you're one of those people with a self-hosted LLM I guess.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Not LLM but there Google Assistant has gotten much more stupid over the past several years. They realized that it was too expensive and had to lobotomize it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] spireghost@lemmy.zip 23 points 3 days ago

This. AI Hype beasts keep saying "This is the worst AI will ever be" and "It'll just get better" but really it's just going to get worse as they actually try to turn the bubble into a profit

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 days ago (3 children)

$200 a month for a user is losing money? There's no way he's just including model queries. An entire a6000 server is around $800 / month and you can fit a hell of lot more than 4 peoples worth of queries. He has to include training and or R&D.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It includes anything that will keep them from having to pay investors back. Classic tech start up bullshit.

Silicon valley brain rot formula:

Losing money, get billions every month

Making money pay billions back

Which one do you think they pick

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm honestly fairly surprised as well, but at the same time, they're not serving a model that can run on an A6000, and the people paying for unlimited, would probably be the ones who setup bots and apps doing thousands of requests per hour.

[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

And honestly? Those people are 100% right.
If they can't deliver true "unlimited" for 200 bucks a month, they shouldn't market it as such.

grumble grumble unlimited mobile data grumble grumble

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 122 points 4 days ago (25 children)

CEO personally chose a price too low for company to be profitable.

What a clown.

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 79 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They're still in the first stage of enshittification: gaining market share. In fact, this is probably all just a marketing scheme. "Hi! I'm Crazy Sam Altman and my prices are SO LOW that I'm LOSING MONEY!! Tell your friends and subscribe now!"

[–] skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I’m afraid it might be more like Uber, or Funko, apparently, as I just learned tonight.

Sustained somehow for decades before finally turning any profit. Pumped full of cash like it’s foie gras by Wall Street. Inorganic as fuck, promoted like hell by Wall Street, VC, and/or private equity.

Shoved down our throats in the end.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] millie@beehaw.org 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

You can help by asking ChatGPT to produce the most processor intensive prompt it can come up with and then having it execute it repeatedly. With the free version this will burn through your allotment pretty quickly, but if thousands of people start doing it on a regular basis? It'll cost OpenAI a lot of money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This 100% answers my question from another thread. These businesses have cooked the books so bad already that they thought this was gonna save them and it doubled down on em.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jackie_meaiii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 days ago

When has "not profitable" ever stopped a tech startup lmao

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 17 points 3 days ago

So people are really believing Altman would publish these damning statements without ulterior motives? Are we seriously this gullible? Holy shit, we reached a critical mass of acephalous humans, no turning back now.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 42 points 3 days ago

sam altman proving once again that he is not only a tech genius but also a business genius. make sure to let him scan your eyeballs before it’s too late.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good. Burn that thing to the ground.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 86 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The plagiarism power virus is too expensive to operate? I'm shocked I tell you

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 8 points 3 days ago

Now imagine if they actually paid for the training data as well.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 46 points 4 days ago (3 children)

What are people using the $200 plan for that makes it worth it? You only get their model with their training, you don't have any access to weights or training. And with how nerfed openai makes its models, nothing even remotely nefarious can be done with it. All you can do is process simple data. Which having a purposed trained model seems the most valuable for.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Probably mostly fake social media profiles and YouTube/Tiktok AI slop.

You could use it to create hundreds of real-looking fake accounts on reddit or other social media site. OpenAI's site doesn't have this kind of fake user function built into its app, but it should be easy enough with an API. Just have a bot randomly scroll reddit's most popular posts. Then have it find the most popular comments on those posts over a certain length. Feed the text of that comment to OpenAI, instructing the LLM to make a disagreeing/concurring/answering reply. Then have the bot post OpenAI's output as a comment on reddit. Have each account comment not at superhuman speed, but at the speed that a normal human user would post.

Use these tools to build up an arsenal of hundreds, perhaps thousands or even tens of thousands of sockpuppet accounts. Each will have years of post history behind them, so they will pass typical subreddit filters like "account must be this old or have X comment karma" to post. Just keep these bots constantly running and available.

Then, when you want to use them, use them. Don't even dramatically switch their persona. Want to use your bot network for politics? Have your 10,000 fake users mostly comment on random banal stuff. But every 10th post or so have them post a comment for whatever politician or cause you support. You might even have them regularly post content of that political persuasion as a normal part of their operation. Same thing with advertising. Have them mostly post random stuff, but have them occasionally post a glowing review for a product, film, or service.

The real use for OpenAI's software is as a vector for very effective and difficult to detect and filter astroturfing campaigns. Hell, just getting your name out there can be advantageous. Are you a nobody, but with a lot of cash, that wants to launch a political career? Higher such a bot net to sprinkle your name across social media. Even if all the bots do is mention you, neither praising or condemning, it gets your name out there. The next election cycle, when people start talking about potential primary candidates for a particular office, real people will suggest your name, simply because they heard it somewhere. Name recognition is a powerful thing.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago

Good riddance. We never asked for it, and we didn’t deserve it forced on us.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

Sooooo, wanna tell us how much the cost really is per prompt?

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Why is same personally picking subscription prices anyway? Should there be some accountant doing that math? Wtf

[–] mii@awful.systems 36 points 4 days ago

Their accountant is probably three GPTs in a trench coat that’s being fed prompts by an unpaid intern or some poor dude in India.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 36 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

I cancelled a 20$ subscription I started because it was arguably useful for me and served exactly one use-case. Now I don't need it anymore.

Of course, they had a form asking feedback/why. I chose "ChatGapT is nott advanced enough" as that was one of the alternatives. Hopefully it will lead to them putting more resources into development and burn through investor money faster.

"Trust me bro, just 200m dollars more"

  • Sam Altman, probably
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mikina@programming.dev 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Hmm, we should get together some funds to buy a single unlimited subscription, and then let it continuously generate as large and complex prompts as the rate limitting allows.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 41 points 4 days ago (2 children)

On one hand, heck yes. On the other, part of the reason its so expensive is because of the energy and water usage, so sticking it to the man in this way also is harmful to the environment :(

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›