You keep mentioning cost, and in the grand scale of “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” there’s a large cost but for users, they’re just paying for a license from Microsoft to have copilot in their visual studio software or in M365 apps, etc.
So for helping with development, it’s really not that expensive for the users. Also, “they” make lots of ridiculous claims, and i don’t know who said it, but no developers in 5 years is a wild claim that no one should’ve thought was real.
It’s expensive enough my employer (of more than 2000) decided to only trial it with a small subset of seniors. It’s not just the license, it comes tied up with new hardware
So far nobody likes it. Most people use it to summarize meetings and we just got a memo saying we need to review the summaries because it keeps missing important data
Having said all that, when I mentioned the cost, I was referring to the cost of training the models. And without a proper business plan to monetize it, it’s is still unclear how this version of AI could be actually sold for profit.
Remember that cost, is not just a number. It’s the number in relationships with the benefit it provides.
For OpenAI, it has yet to produce profit that is not just venture capital and for us as user (us, I cannot speak for everyone) it has not saved us a dime after getting expensive hardware and licenses
Oh and for the final point. True, openAI may not have been the one to say no programmers in five years although, replacing people has always been their angle. But by now we have seen OpenAI play so fast and loose with all their claims and benchmarks, we cannot believe a word they say (which you seem to do and keep on posting here).
Yeah, I know better than to get involved in debating someone more interested in spitting out five paragraph essays trying to deconstruct and invalidate others views one by one, than bothering to double check if they’re still talking to the same person.
I believe you aren’t interested in exchanging ideas and different viewpoints. You want to win an argument and validate that your view is the right one. Sorry, im not that kind of person who enjoys arguing back and forth over the internet or in general. Look elsewhere for a debate opponent to sharpen your rhetoric on.
I wish you well in life whoever you are but there is no point in us talking. We will just have to see how the future goes in the next 10 years.
All good. I think we’re thinking of this from different aspects anyway. I’m thinking a company just subscribes as part of their office subscription and Microsoft is doing the heavy lifting of the cost and hardware. I don’t know how OpenAI makes money besides their little subscription.
You keep mentioning cost, and in the grand scale of “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” there’s a large cost but for users, they’re just paying for a license from Microsoft to have copilot in their visual studio software or in M365 apps, etc.
So for helping with development, it’s really not that expensive for the users. Also, “they” make lots of ridiculous claims, and i don’t know who said it, but no developers in 5 years is a wild claim that no one should’ve thought was real.
It’s expensive enough my employer (of more than 2000) decided to only trial it with a small subset of seniors. It’s not just the license, it comes tied up with new hardware
So far nobody likes it. Most people use it to summarize meetings and we just got a memo saying we need to review the summaries because it keeps missing important data
Having said all that, when I mentioned the cost, I was referring to the cost of training the models. And without a proper business plan to monetize it, it’s is still unclear how this version of AI could be actually sold for profit.
Remember that cost, is not just a number. It’s the number in relationships with the benefit it provides.
For OpenAI, it has yet to produce profit that is not just venture capital and for us as user (us, I cannot speak for everyone) it has not saved us a dime after getting expensive hardware and licenses
Oh and for the final point. True, openAI may not have been the one to say no programmers in five years although, replacing people has always been their angle. But by now we have seen OpenAI play so fast and loose with all their claims and benchmarks, we cannot believe a word they say (which you seem to do and keep on posting here).
I’ve only made the comment you’re replying to. I’m not whoever you’re thinking.
Yes, my bad, apologies
I thought you were the person I replied to originally
Yeah, I know better than to get involved in debating someone more interested in spitting out five paragraph essays trying to deconstruct and invalidate others views one by one, than bothering to double check if they’re still talking to the same person.
I believe you aren’t interested in exchanging ideas and different viewpoints. You want to win an argument and validate that your view is the right one. Sorry, im not that kind of person who enjoys arguing back and forth over the internet or in general. Look elsewhere for a debate opponent to sharpen your rhetoric on.
I wish you well in life whoever you are but there is no point in us talking. We will just have to see how the future goes in the next 10 years.
Lol oh the irony
All good. I think we’re thinking of this from different aspects anyway. I’m thinking a company just subscribes as part of their office subscription and Microsoft is doing the heavy lifting of the cost and hardware. I don’t know how OpenAI makes money besides their little subscription.
As far as I have read, that’s it, which is not profitable. They have been coasting on Venture Capital only so far.