If you liked this piece, you should subscribe to my premium newsletter. It’s $70 a year, or $7 a month, and in return you get a weekly newsletter that’s usually anywhere from 5,000 to 18,000 words, including vast, detailed analyses of NVIDIA, Anthropic and OpenAI’s

No matter how much you dress up whatever AI service has gaslit you into believing it’s sentient, generative AI is inherently limited, impossibly expensive and economically unviable. Its services cost too much to run, its progenitors have no path to profitability, and no amount of rigged benchmarks and anecdotal examples of theoretical engineering teams that are “10x’d” can make up for the fact that you can’t measure the cost of an LLM-driven task or its return on investment.

Anyone claiming that you have to “measure AI’s ROI differently” is attempting to con either you or themselves. While it’s tough to measure the ROI of a particular worker or project, most workers and projects don’t increase your operating expenses by anywhere from 10% to 100% under the vaguest of promises that you might be “doing the future.” AI is calamitously expensive and, despite years of promises of it getting cheaper for both those running AI services and its customers, costs have only ever increased.

I think that’s by design. AI labs want their costs to be high so that they can continue growing at ridiculous rates, all so that they can keep feeding money to their hyperscaler compute partners who then invest that money right back into them, creating further reasons to keep buying NVIDIA GPUs, so that NVIDIA can then invest that money back into either AI compute providers (who OpenAI and Anthropic pay) or the AI labs themselves.

Concepts like “efficiency” or “cost reduction” run counter to the greater narrative of AI’s voracious sprawl of data center capex and still-theoretical AI revenue. If OpenAI or Anthropic were to seek profitability or sustainability (assuming these things were possible), that would create less demand for AI compute, which would mean less demand for Azure or Google Cloud or Amazon Web Services or CoreWeave or Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, which would in turn mean less demand for NVIDIA GPUs.

The problem with this marvelous plan is that at some point there had to be an honest transaction — real, honest, sustainable demand based on a reliable product that people liked paying for because they understood its value. Right now, AI revenues are either chaotically experimental or so thoroughly-subsidized that labs are giving away hundreds of dollars a user in the hopes that at some point said user might want to pay even more money for measurably less value, the kind of proposition you make when you think your customers are fucking idiots.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    0·
    6 hours ago

    I heard someone describe LLMs as useful in the context of being handy plugins which tallies with what you’re saying. In certain situations they’re useful. The problem is that they’re being completely misrepresented and sold as being able to do things that they can’t do consistently or well so the hype and astronomical sums of money being thrown around is problematic.

    • Dave.@aussie.zone
      1·
      4 hours ago

      I use them for a bit of coding leverage, and they require a fair bit of… not hand holding, but explicitness, maybe. Otherwise they wander down the path of statistical averageness, and the average code they saw during training was shit.

      So they’ll happily serve up a pile of inefficient dogshit, complete with working tests and docs and all of that. And then they’ll happily refactor it at your suggestion to slowly turn it into something that’s resource friendly and generally secure and generally expandable.

      But there’s no way for them to do that by themselves if you don’t have the basic domain knowledge to guide them in the right direction. You’ll just get average code, and once you’ve been in the game for a few decades, you realise that nice, efficient, quality code is the rarity, not the norm.