[jacurtis]

In a recent episode of Hard Fork podcast, the hosts discussed an on-the-record conversation they had with Sam Altman from OpenAI. They asked him about profitability and he claimed that they are losing money mostly because of the cost of training. But as the model advances, they will train less and less. Once you take training out of the equation he claimed they were profitable based on the cost of serving the trained foundation models to users at current prices.

Now, when he said that, his CFO corrected him and said they aren't profitable, but said "it's close".

Take that with a grain of salt, but thats a conversation from one of the big AI companies that is only a few weeks old. I suspect that it is pretty accurate that pricing is currently reasonable if you ignore training. But training is very expensive and the reason most AI companies are losing money right now.

[anothernewdude]

Unfortunately for those companies, their APIs are a commodity, and are very fungible. So they'll need to keep training or be replaced with whichever competitor will. This is an exercise in attrition.

[LadyCailin]

I wonder if we’re reaching a point of diminishing returns with training, at least, just by scaling the data set. I mean, there’s a finite amount of information (that can be obtained reasonably) to be trained on. I think we’re already at a sizable chunk of that, not to mention the cost of naively scaling up. My guess is that the ultimate winner will be the one that figures out how to improve without massive training costs, through better algorithms, or maybe even just better hardware (i.e. neuristors). I mean, we know that at worst case, we should be able to build something with human level intelligence that takes about 20 watts to run, and is about the size of a human head, and you only need to ingest a small slice of all available information to do that. And training should only use about 3.5 MWh, total, and can be done with the same hardware that runs the model.

[diamond559]

You lost me at "Sam Altman says".

[dgfitz]

> But as the model advances, they will train less and less.

They sure have a lot of training to do between now and whenever that happens. Rolling back from 5 to whatever was before it is their own admission of this fact.

[mindwok]

I think that actually proves the opposite. People wanted an old model, not a new one, indicating that for that user base they could have just... not trained a new model.

[PeterStuer]

That is for a very specific class of usecases. If they would turn up the sycophancy on the new model, those people would not call for the old onee.

The reasoning here is off. It is like saying new game development is nearly over as some people keep playing old games.

My feeling: we've yet barely scrarched the surface on the milage we can get out of even today's frontier models, but we are just at the beginning of a huge runway for improved models and architectures. Watch this space.

[jazzyjackson]

for their user base, sure

for their investors, however, they are promising a revolution

[hnfsfdsd]

If people want old models, they can go to any of the competitor's , deepseek, claud, opensources, etc... That's not good news for OpenAI.

[pas]

> most AI companies are losing money right now

which is completely "normal" at this point, """right"""? if you have billions of VC money chasing returns there's no time to sit around, it's all in, the hype train doesn't wait for bootstrapping profitability. and of course with these gargantuan valuations and mandatory YoY growth numbers, there is no way they are not fucking with the unit economy numbers too. (biases are hard to beat, especially if there's not much conscious effort to do so.)

[brianwawok]

Does the cost of good come down 10x or not? For say Uber it didn’t, so we went from great $6 VC funded product to mediocre $24 ride product we have today. I’m not sure I’m going to use Copilot at $1 per request. Or even $0.25. Starts to approach overseas consultant in price and ability.

[pas]

well, Uber always faced the obvious problem of scaling (even after level 42 self-driving, because it's not possible to serve local demand with global supply, plus all the regulatory compliance issues - which they initially "conveniently" sidestepped by being bold/criminal, but cities are not going to play dumb forever)

of course these chat-AIs also started by "well maybe it's fair use", but at least the scaling problem seems easier than for taxi services