vane comments on OpenAI projected to bring in $20bn less in revenue than expected

[–] vane@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

They raised $122-123B this year to bring $50 billion revenue, $20B less than expected. Looks like very sustainable business to me. Even if they bring those $68B that's still 50% burned. Don't you fucking see it ?

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And it's all because their models are super under-optimised.

You'd think otherwise with how capable Opus and Fable are, but it's just because the internal harness hides the thinking process, resulting in wildly improved output at the cost of 3-5x more compute being burned.

If they tossed one of the more capable open models in (looking at you, Qwen3.8/Qwen4), those costs would go down a lot.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] vane@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago*

Anthropic raised $105B in 2026. $10.9B Q2 revenue. That's at most $50B revenue per year. It's still 50% burned. Don't you fucking see it ?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] cinoreus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Lumisal@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

None of the LLMs could figure out what I meant when asked "Find me lion and the lamb iconography examples used before the messianic age". They kept instead pulling up Christian things specifically (even though Judaism beats it by hundreds of years). Even when I emphasized to ignore Christianity / Christian sources they'd keep insisting on it.

It doesn't matter how you process the data - looped transformer, harnesses, etc. These are still glorified overgrown statistics machines, and will default to whatever floods it's data the most because there is ZERO intelligence.

I've also checked how they do code, and it's terrible. The great for very beginner stuff or boiler plate code. By anything as advanced as a website and it's shit.

Sure, it technically can make a functional website. I tested it just to see how it works. But it does it the equivalent way a human technically can make a functional car out of cobbled together scraps from a scrap yard. It used SO MANY classes for no goddamn reason. So much inline CSS too. It's like, good fucking luck fixing an issue manually and unravelling the tangle of containers it's made. You'd have to use the LLM again just to change things at that point because it'd be easier, and hope it doesn't break a button. Mind you this is a simple HTML and CSS website, not even JavaScript. There's no way in hell I'd trust anything more complex created via vibe coding.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago*

I definitely agree LLMs generate a lot of bloated code.

Look, LLMs are pattern identifiers. They identity patterns. They don't guess. Guessing is what humans do. They 'latch' onto a pattern. They don't learn patterns, they recognise them. Yes, is what studies have shown. LLMs don't learn gradually like Humans. They "latch" onto patterns. It's not sentient. It's just a machine learning algorithm, and if you think any of the AI that came before LLM is intelligent, then even LLMs are intelligent. If you think deep learning algorithms are just non linear matrix multiplications, they're exactly that.

LLMs coming for Coding jobs isn't because they're superhuman intelligent, its cause what most coders do is mostly same things. LLMs cannot do novel architecture, but if it's similar to 50 different softwares who's code it has trained on, yes, LLMs can so that.

LLMs are marvelous machines. They're not sentient, and only intelligent if you're willing to call every other ML algorithm intelligent. But the underlying statistics algorithm can and will keep getting better and/or more efficient, that was the point I was trying to make earlier.

Edit: actually you make some more good points. If LLM gets free reign over a project, they do make code unreadable. And Idk if that problem will be solved. It's just too much code they write, and efficiency is not something their training data gave them.