top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 86 points 5 months ago* (15 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Imagine having a streaming service so bad it fails twice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Isn't that kind of Yahoo!'s business model?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Actually, when Yahoo was the search giant, before Google went mainstream, they were pretty damn good at what they did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    With how shit Google is these days, I kinda wonder if Yahoo could dust out their search engine from two decades back and it would just be... better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Netflix was also late to streaming because their mail service subscriptions were THE major player

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Late to streaming? Netflix was the first big time streaming service that I ever heard of. The main reason their streaming service was able to take off like it did is that nobody else of significance thought that streaming was worth pursuing. What other companies were offering streaming services at anything approaching scale before Netflix?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    YouTube and Hulu were basically all starting about the same time. But RealPlayer was the first big one.

    Netflix just had the layout that everyone uses now. The Cable networks had streaming services, just not on demand. YouTube and Hulu also pioneered the on demand layout. YouTube focused on personal experiences so maybe that's why you're forgetting them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    YouTube started in 2005, but was not really a "streaming service", it hosted random internet posted videos. The concept of engaging with the big content rights holders wasn't remotely in sight back then.

    Hulu came out a year after Netflix started streaming, by about a year. Hulu was inspired by Netflix's move to have actual traditional media content as a streaming service instead of ad-hoc video uploads like youtube.

    RealPlayer offered technology for websites to provide videos, they themselves I don't recall being a streaming platform in and of itself.

    Whatever one may say about Netflix, they were right there in the beginning with streaming traditional, professional media content. Yes, video playback over the internet wasn't new, but that's a technical detail that enables, but is not the core of the "streaming service" business model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    late to streaming, but practically the first subscription based system to watch movies/tv online.

    First years of Netflix were the best, the product began degrading quite early on. but that was mostly companies realizing that instead of licensing their content on Netflix, they can make their own platforms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I think people forget that there is also the problem of being "too early" where people or the technology isn't ready yet. Netflix timed their entry perfectly.

    There are so many defunct websites or businesses that no one has ever heard of that were precursors to modern day services we view as conveniences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 156 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    Of course it is, it’s essentially a scam. They just need enough humans to keep investing until they check out and run with a bailout.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Funny thing is, the US government doesn't even have nearly enough money to bail all these mfa out. So we are heading into uncharted territory here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago

    And that's why they're trying underhanded tactics to inflate earnings and IPO directly into the index funds, so every American's 401K will legally have to rebalance and invest in them. They're racing to fleece retirement funds before the bubble bursts.

    Not financial advice, of course :p but people should really consider getting their stuff out and into self-directed funds or whatever it is US people do to not depend on auto-allocated funds.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Of course they don’t, that’s why they’re building bunkers. Thinking it’ll slow us down, as we’ll open their bunkers like cans of tuna. A bunker only works for so long, then the survivors start hunting for them like delicious shipwrecks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I don't get why companies get to legally bailout like this. Why do people have to suffer for their bullshit? Enslave the CEOs if you have to make things right, leave the people out of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's simple, because the people making laws and overseeing the adherence to those laws are great buddies with those same CEOs.

    So, corruption.

    Though i do agree with you, there is no such thing as too big to fail. Government shouldn't have any handouts to corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 5 points 5 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Both Uber and Spotify (and AWS too) had economics of scale going for them - the more users they have, the more the infrastructure could be leveraged. This does NOT work for LLMs. More users means using more compute, more advanced tasks (like coding) uses exponential amounts of compute. A single user running a complex task can make 8 Blackwell GPUs run full tilt, and you don't even have any guarantee that the output will be useable.

    There are a few narrow areas where LLMs might be successful, like scanning for security vulnerabilities or searching large amounts of documents. The massive amount of money invested will never be recouped with these usage scenarios.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    solving something like the ErdΕ‘s unit distance conjecture

    Tell me you listen to media news cycle without understanding what that actually mean without telling me that.

    That's not exactly what happened, isn't it.

    Not to bring up what’s also been accomplished in cyber security

    Multiple new vectors of attacks, automation of attack pipelines...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    To clarify, my argument is that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Erodos unit distance conjecture is a proposed solution to a Erodos unit distance problem. What the LLM model did was disproving Erodos unit distance conjecture, not solving it (you don't solve a conjecture), nor solving the problem (that remains unsolved).

    Again, you seem poisoned by following news media cycle without understanding what they talk about.

    Multiple new vectors of attacks, automation of attack pipelines…

    Like literally just put that into Google, it's not some study that proves it, it's the multiple ones, and every cybersecurity expert talking about it. But if you want a one source you want to argue about, then https://blog.checkpoint.com/research/global-cyber-attacks-rise-in-january-2026-amid-increasing-ransomware-activity-and-expanding-genai-risks/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 5 months ago
    [–] 40 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Honestly Google is likely to beat openAI and Anthropic as things are.

    OpenAI and Anthropic have to buy/rent their hardware from Nvidia, while Google is making their own TPU hardware. Google's hardware costs on AI is way lower, every dollar they spend on it goes a lot farther.

    And unlike the other two, they're already a profitable company. They're making record profits right now. They don't have a desperate need to figure out how to make back billions on their AI models, they can just keep offering Gemini at a comparatively cheap price and wait for anthropic and open AI to bankrupt themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    That's definitely costing them more than running it on their own hardware, but it doesn't mean AI is costing them more than the AI startups. Anthropic for example is already paying SpaceX 1.25 Billion a month for compute, and has agreed to pay Google 200 billion over the next 5 years for access to Google's compute and TPU chips.

    Google's deal with xAI specifically lets them terminate the deal with 90 days notice after the end of the year. Google is also investing heavily in building new data centers with their hardware. I'm assuming this deal means they've eclipsed their current TPU capacity, and are just looking for a short term bandaid until they can catch up with their new constructions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Plus they have a hook with the common folk, the phone steers you toward Gemini (Android phones, obviously, and Apple currently partners with Google for Gemini for iPhone...).

    For Claude and OpenAI, you have to explicitly want to go out of your way to use them, or use them indirectly through another service that has a hook.

    Claude seems to have some software developers explicitly preferring them, though a alot of the corporate money is on Microsoft and Microsoft leveraged Visual Studio and Github to become the business-friendly frontend, and sure, you can use Anthropic models too... Though Microsoft ultimately has control of what is reasonably available and how much each one costs. Anthropic has a shot but I could see Microsoft pivot to really mess with Anthropic. The one gap in Microsoft strategy is the "native AI" workflow where Claude Code has won hearts and minds, but it uses massively more tokens for frankly marginal or sometimes negative value compared to a more curated use in-editor.

    OpenAI I see as the most exposed. Lot's of data showing they are suffering from people being over the fad of going out of their way to use ChatGPT, especially since their phones have started embracing 'default' Chatbot. Software developers that are inclined to use LLM are also inclined to be pretty dismissive of anything other than either Anthropic or open weight models, depending on their inclination. Also Altman seemed the most agressive in committing to spending money they didn't have, though all of them exhibit this to some extent.

    I predict Microsoft ultimately pivots to in-house models and convinces the businesses to go that way. Apple may continue with Gemini or roll their own eventually. Anthropic currently has the stronger position between OpenAI and them, but I think you are right that both have risk of just being left behind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Claude just kills the other models, it's not close. Microsoft could ban claude extension from VSC tonight and ill start using command line Claude tomorrow. There's just no comparison right now. Itd be like Microsoft trying to ban NVidia gpus from Windows, they'll just lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    It's gonna come crashing down pretty soon. It's gonna hurt all of us. It won't hurt the people responsible nearly enough.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    pretty soon

    people have been saying that for some time though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The thing is this really depends on the speed of some financial events, not some technical failing.

    Notably, if OpenAI has to cancel any of their commitments to buy hardware because they find they have neither the money nor can secure even more debt to cover, that event would potentially cause the bubble to pop, even for hypothetical companies that may have been more responsible and might have a viable business approach. Those commitments are coming up, and a lot of analysis struggles to see how they will fund those commitments.

    The thing with this bubble is that the investors don't get the nuance and will flee at signs of trouble in any of OpenAI, Anthropic, or a handful of others, and Altman's leadership has made trouble at OpenAI very likely, but the investors don't believe it and won't believe it's unique to OpenAI, even if it would be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    What people? All the credible people I read say that things fall apart Q2/Q3 2027 as debt and profit obligations are due.

    The only thing that changed is now there is an energy crisis coming, so it's possible that might force the bubble to pop sooner if all the systemic risk aligns.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Only because the hype has lasted longer than expected. Now that IPOs have been filed, the AI companies (Anthropic, OpenAI) released statements about slowing down to protect us. They're setting the stage for lower growth. But I think you should invest every penny you have into "SpaceXMegaTwitterSuperCarAI".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    so these crazy prices i hear about being implemented (like at github) should actually be at least 10x higher?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Nice try, I ain't gonna pay anyway

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Exactly, I just keep using the free plan and when I finish the amount for the day I just switch to another service

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is why IMO blitz scaling is dumb when your service is a commodity. I'm not any more loyal to Uber than Skip. If more investor money goes into making a cheaper meal or ride on Skip I use that. Consumers are mercenaries about that stuff.

    The "blitz" part of blitz scaling assumes your customers can't move.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 48 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    they are spending infinite money for every $1 i pay them

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I'm quite happy to use their compute power for frivolous bullshit if it hastens their enshittification and demise.

    "Hey Claude, can you begin work on an e-commerce site written in visual basic?"

    Two microseconds later...

    "Your free usage limit has been reached"

    "Ok Claude see you tomorrow, maybe we'll think about a rewrite in Turbo Pascal"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "I need a triple A cooking game with blackjack and hookers, all written in SQL."

    "But that's a database langu-"

    "Did I stutter?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Agreed, but hey no need to pile the the hate on Pascal, modern ones like FPC/Lazarus are pretty cool actually :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Good thing I don't personally pay them anything

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, you are going to pay. The bubble is going to fuck us all quite thoroughly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I mean, this is no different than Walmart making prices low until other businesses die out and then raising them.

    It is no different than police shoving all the homeless people and drug addicts into one area of town to crash the property prices, and then evicting them once developers buy everything for cheap.

    They're purposely operating at a loss in the expectation that they can get ingrained into a ton of workflows, and then gouge everyone absolutely to death while also worsening the quality of the service to make it cheaper for them to run.

    If it weren't so horrible for the environment, I'd kind of like it, because all the dumbass executives that are signing up for this are going to get exactly what they deserve. You'd think they'd recognize a scheme when they see one.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    My CEO (whom I don't consider a particularly good or bad CEO) spent a day playing with AI then when asked if he'd sign the company up with the service he literally laughed in their faces and said it's useless. I was honestly shocked because he's totally into buzzword and popular crap. Gained a lot of respect for him that day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    An older co-worker seems to ask AI for help during work, we are blue collar. But the Owner of the company does not seem to use it whatsoever.

    I ask Claude on occasion, to see if it will say something smart (it was mostly useless as fuck).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly I think Claude it's good at programming. Way better than ChatGPT.

    But I ain't going to pay for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Published a library doing some very specific data processing. One of the algorithms I implemented was a bit too slow: it would take about a week to process data. I reckon implementation was a little bit sloppy, but I've been implementing a bunch of algorithms from research papers and this was pretty much the published implementation.

    I asked Claude to analyse the implementation and check whether it could be improved, half an hour later I got a 26,000% improvement in performance with exactly the same results passing all tests.

    Of course, I could have done that myself. But optimization had to go down to simd level; I doubt I would have been able to do that in less than a week of work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The problem is that the hardware has a 5 or 6 year depreciation schedule on paper, but NVIDIA keeps saying that their next generation chip will be twice as good as their last chip so there is a FOMO schedule of like every two years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    that's the $84,000 question. They're filling datacenters with the fastest possible equipment and need it to be 10x faster, That hardware is dinosaur fodder a year after they install it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months 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.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago*

    Now, I'm no MBA, but that seems like a bad business plan...

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder how much they spend for every $0 I pay them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    How much do they spend when I pay nothing?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    Good thing all the companies leaning hard on AI 10 X'd their profits... Wait...

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    AI Bubble burst coming sooner?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Oh come on bubble, why won't you crash already?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Love that for them

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    That's not good business

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Uh .... This doesn't seem like it will end well.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    So much comments on just the title .... Could come from anthropic directly.

    There is literally zero basis on the made claim in the article, just arbitrage calculations over supposed token consumptions under non stable test sets.

    I have no idea if/how much these stupid fuckers spend to get more customers - and this "article" wasted a lot of time showing that they don't know either.

    (Stupid is cut out because I don't think they they're stupid. Which makes it way worse in my book)

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    no wonder why OpenAI is losing alot of money.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The author is right and wrong. Its subsidised but not by anthropic. The power users who use their plans to the limit are subsidised by the rest of the users. Im an AI hater but I do think anthropic will be profitable next year. Their revenue growth is insane and looks to just be getting started. Claude code took enterprise by storm and now cowork is out.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί
    3 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post