Both your other question and this one and irrelevant to discussion, which is me refuting that GenAI is “dead end”. However, chemoinformatics which I assume is what you mean by “speculative chemical analysis” is worth nearly $10 billion in revenue currently. Again, two field being related to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they must have the same market value.
Boy these goalpost sure are getting hard to see now.
Is anybody paying for ChatGPT, the myriad of code completion models, the hosting for them, dialpadAI, Sider and so on? Oh I’m sure one or two people at least. A lot of tech (and non tech) companies, mine included, do so for stuff like Dialpad and sider off the top of my head.
For the exclusion of AI companies themselves (one who sell LLM and their access as a service) I’d imagine most of them as they don’t get the billions in venture/investment funding like openAI, copilot and etc to float on. We usually only see revenue not profitability posted by companies. Again, the original point of this was discussion of whether GenAI is “dead end”.
Even if we lived in a world where revenue for a myriad of these companies hadn’t been increasing end over end for years, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to support that claim; e.g. open source models, research inside and out of academia.
They are losing money on their 200$ subscriber plan afaik. These “goalposts” are all saying the same thing.
It is a dead end because of the way it’s being driven.
You brought up 100 billion by 2030. There’s no revenue, and it’s not useful to people. Saying there’s some speculated value but not showing that there’s real services or a real product makes this a speculative investment vehicle, not science or technology.
Small research projects and niche production use cases aren’t 100b. You aren’t disproving it’s hypetrain with such small real examples.
Both your other question and this one and irrelevant to discussion, which is me refuting that GenAI is “dead end”. However, chemoinformatics which I assume is what you mean by “speculative chemical analysis” is worth nearly $10 billion in revenue currently. Again, two field being related to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they must have the same market value.
Right, and what percentage of their expenditures is software tooling?
Who’s paying for this shit? Anybody? Who’s selling it without a loss? Anybody?
Boy these goalpost sure are getting hard to see now.
Is anybody paying for ChatGPT, the myriad of code completion models, the hosting for them, dialpadAI, Sider and so on? Oh I’m sure one or two people at least. A lot of tech (and non tech) companies, mine included, do so for stuff like Dialpad and sider off the top of my head.
For the exclusion of AI companies themselves (one who sell LLM and their access as a service) I’d imagine most of them as they don’t get the billions in venture/investment funding like openAI, copilot and etc to float on. We usually only see revenue not profitability posted by companies. Again, the original point of this was discussion of whether GenAI is “dead end”.
Even if we lived in a world where revenue for a myriad of these companies hadn’t been increasing end over end for years, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to support that claim; e.g. open source models, research inside and out of academia.
They are losing money on their 200$ subscriber plan afaik. These “goalposts” are all saying the same thing.
It is a dead end because of the way it’s being driven.
You brought up 100 billion by 2030. There’s no revenue, and it’s not useful to people. Saying there’s some speculated value but not showing that there’s real services or a real product makes this a speculative investment vehicle, not science or technology.
Small research projects and niche production use cases aren’t 100b. You aren’t disproving it’s hypetrain with such small real examples.