you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Nope, you'll certainly need a source to back that speculation up.

Half a billion people are "using" AI and the total llm market cap is a few billion. On average, users may be willing to pay up to 50 cents a month for inaccurate word association.

Not even a drop in the buckets companies need to fill up with everything they're spending just on advertising, not to mention infrastructure, utility and upgrade costs.

People are statistically not willing to sustainably pay for llms, even if we assumed the rosy predictions of 20x LLM market caps in a decade.

Devil's advocate: Increased AI cash flow could occur if people don't realize their ai "search results" are paid advertisements, and considering longstanding obliviousness to directed advertising and the recent abolishment of US consumer rights...it could happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    "Nope" implies you already have a source proving me wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Yes; the included source and explanatory paragraph above in the same comment you are referencing.

    Would you care to provide any evidence for your speculation that people are willing to pay enough for AI to sustain its costs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Would you care to provide any evidence for your speculation that people are willing to pay enough for AI to sustain its costs?

    ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users and their total revenue in 2025 was 13 billion with 70% coming from normal users. That's drop in the bucket though considering they've commited to investing a trillion dollars into new computing capacity over the next 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    This is why you should provide a source, your numbers and associated assumptions are incorrect:

    Chatgpt has estimated revenue of 1.3 billion, not 13 billion, neither of which are remotely significant as revenue streams relative to cost.

    That's the thrust of my opening paragraph, and then you appear to have taken up my drop in the bucket analogy, so i guess we're on the same page now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    You mean the independent source I provided several messages ago you're trying hard not to acknowledge?

    You've got to learn personal and community responsibility sooner or later. You can make wild claims, but since they've already been disproved, you're going to have to provide evidence eventually.

  • source
  • parent