[philipwhiuk]

> It's not subsidized, lol.

It's subsidised by VC funding. At some point the gravy train stops and they have to pivot to profit so that the VCs deliver return-on-investment. Look at Facebook shoving in adverts, Uber jacking up the price, etc.

> I don't understand how you can be a software engineer and afford to have opinions like that

I don't know how you can afford not to realise that there's a fixed value prop here for the current behaviour and that it's potentially not as high as it needs to be for OpenAI to turn a profit.

OpenAI's ridiculous investment ability is based on a future potential it probably will never hit. Assuming it does not, the whole stack of cards falls down real quick.

(You can Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V OpenAI for all the big AI providers)

[anoncareer0212]

This is all about OpenAI, not about AI being subsidized...with some sort of directive to copy/paste "OpenAI" for all the big AI providers? (presumably you meant s/OpenAI/$PROVIDER?)

If that's what you meant: Google. Boom.

Also, perhaps you're a bit new to industry, but that's how these things go. They burn a lot of capital building it out b/c they can always fire everyone and just serve at cost -- i.e. subsidizing business development is different from subsiziding inference, unless you're just sort of confused and angry at the whole situation and it all collapses into everyone's losing money and no one will admit it.

[hvb2]

You're replying to a story about a hyperscaler worrying investors about how much they're leveraging themselves for a small number of companies.

From the article: > OpenAI faces questions about how it plans to meet its commitments to spend $1.4tn on AI infrastructure over the next eight years.

Someone needs to pay for that 1.4 trillion, that's 2/3 of what Microsoft makes this year. If you think they'll make that from revenue, that's fine. I don't. And that's just the infra.