I’m not sure why that is but a large number of the F100s I contract with are suddenly deploying 4 times the number of containers they had before.

So unfortunately, for those like me who spent a decade in the trades, saw that it could destroy your body by your 40s and decided I’d like to not have that happen to me the number of exits into knowledge work is shrinking.

Honestly, the sheer amount of misconfigured Salesforce instances out there (that I’ve personally seen) is just unconscionable.

I’ll be glad to hear any argument at this point but if we don’t have one yet (other than “he’s wrong because I have a side business selling AI products/services”) I don’t think one is coming.

But you’re right…5 percent is better than what it was but at scale that’s still quite a bit.

I see though that you don’t seem to want to do that either. It’s more that you just really don’t want him to be right is what I’m gathering, which is fine honestly.

I’m confused by your distaste for what he’s saying though. The failure of OAI or Anthropic doesn’t mean AI is bad or goes away, just that cheaper/local models turned out to be the right price point. Do you have some specific desire to see these two labs succeed?

The numbers I’ve provided are the basis for just about every article he has written regarding the AI industry with his main point being that the spend is unjustified and unsustainable and more importantly unwarranted considering the usefulness and returns (which are not small but in no means justify the enormous estimates of profitability being assumed by these companies).

So, no sleight of hand, just an assumption that your acidic regard for his work was rooted in having read it.

So, do you care to provide a rebuttal to the article or his main point about profitability? I don’t imagine calling his theory “obviously nonsense” was as far as your reasoning went. Care to expand on it?

If someone hits an unsecured API, receives information, and notifies the company of this while also requesting a bounty, would that satisfy all of the requirements of prosecution?

The unlawful gain is the sticking point in my mind.

Regarding Gish galloping, I don’t think you can Gish Gallup in writing. The point as you said is to rapidly overwhelm an opponent. That’s not possible in writing as the points can be argued one by one at the responders leisure.

How are OAI and Anthropic reasonably and reliably going to make the profits they need to to hit these targets?

By Q1 2028: OpenAI ≳ $10B/month Anthropic ≳ $10B/month Combined ≳ $20B/month / $240B ARR

By 2029, according to their own projections: OpenAI ≈ $184B/year Anthropic ≈ $174B/year Combined ≈ $358B/year

And remember, this is also in competition with open models that are increasingly encroaching on SOTA capabilities while costing less and allowing you to do more.

They never refute his claims with anything substantial. They just call you “anti ai” or whatever (despite the argument having nothing to do with the technology, just a subset of companies).

Following HNs guidelines, my most charitable interpretation of your response is that you don’t understand the arguments or numbers behind them and you aren’t just dismissing the arguments because you don’t like them. For that I’m saying you need to feed the article to the LLM of your choice and work back and forth until you get to an understanding of what’s being argued.

We see that these companies have no moat.

We see that companies are already balking at the cost and are increasingly looking at what the actual return of their current spend is, let alone when these prices have been increasing.

Where is the increase in demand going to be coming from? Especially the increase needed to make this make sense?