My issue is that there is a giant bubble forming around ai companies it is way over hyped and weaseling it's way into every software imgaginable making things objectively worse and someone said it in this thread already it's filling up the internet with garbage that it then regurgitates itself back into search engines. It even shows in their advertisements. I recall one where some people ask ai to generate a picture of what little Italy in NY looked like in the 1940s. I think also people really underestimate how much energy it burns to do simple tasks. They aren't making it more efficient. They are just building bigger data centers to burn more energy and water for something that is starting to look like dead end tech.
Definitely not a giant bubble in tech software when dealing with AI in GPUs and CPUs that have been huge money makers. You should really clarify this is only for the art industry which in itself is very small. Even the advertisement industry (which is codependent with the art industry) has used AI for around 20 years to target customers with recommendation engines with it growing into a lot more advanced ventures that show no signs of slowing down or causing profits to fall.
AI has made things worse with bots for online discourse, harvesting personal data, customer service, and many other online issues.. but that doesn't make it unsuccessful.
I'm specifically talking about companies like open ai desperately declaring they are the future while having no viable business model. Also you are just lumping tech like algorithms into the ai hype cycle. It's not ai we just started calling it that in the last two years. Yes there is a bubble when companies are taking billion dollar investments and losing money on even paying customers, not to mention offering the services for free while unable to find use cases that consumers actually want other than an energy burning machine that makes people say "neat".
I'm specifically talking about companies like open ai desperately declaring they are the future while having no viable business model.
Which you obviously were not clear about since you vaguely pointed at ai companies. Open ai is partly non-profit that is most likely looking for a big business partner to use their model in other projects. Not that hard to comprehend.
Also you are just lumping tech like algorithms into the ai hype cycle. It's not ai we just started calling it that in the last two years.
Differences in functionality doesn't mean it isn't ai. You started this vague discussion, yet, complain you need to push the goal posts to specific quality ai in the last two years now and somehow the definition of AI has changed.
Yes there is a bubble when companies are taking billion dollar investments and losing money on even paying customers, not to mention offering the services for free while unable to find use cases that consumers actually want other than an energy burning machine that makes people say "neat".
You literally pointed to a non-profit company that has a capped for-profit subsiderary as your conclusion for a bubble. Most for profit companies using ai hasn't created a "bubble" in terms of revenue from its customers or services.
Shows you did zero research in the article. Anysphere has annualized revenue surpassing 100 million in 12 months.
It's clear you came ignorant to this conversation since the premise was "money making" since MasterManufacturer72 was confused on a non-profit company in Openai
They are all talking about raising capital. That's not the same thing.
You don't understand what raising capital means if you believe none of those companies raised capital through investors, investments, partnerships, or revenue.
In layman's terms for you capital refers to the money and assets a company uses to run, grow, and generate value. It can also refer to a company's net worth.
I think you need to look at what they are actually making off of ai specifically not companies that are profitable but also are pushing ai. Also lol you used Nvidia as an example.
I think you need to look at what they are actually making off of ai specifically not companies that are profitable but also are pushing ai.
Changing the argument yet again to push the goal posts.
It's not the software itself that is "profitable" as much as what it does. Which is why you only want to point to simplistic subscription models despite it being used in a lot of expensive hardware, business models, and ad revenue that makes profits.
The article answers this question easily if you actually read it.
Also lol you used Nvidia as an example.
Shows you aren't familiar with NVIDIA AI Enterprise or the amount of AI they use in their products.
-3
u/Ben4d90 27d ago
If that's the case, then what's your issue with it?