> Does it include:

> Inference used for training? Modern training pipelines aren't just gradient descent, there's a ton of inference used in them too.

No because this is training and not inference. Just like how R&D costs for a drug aren't part of COGS either.

> Gradient descent itself?

No

> The CPUs and disks storing and managing the datasets?

Yes

> The web servers?

Yes

> The people paid to swap out failed components at the dc?

Yes to the extent they are swapping for inference and not training. If the same employees do both then the accountants will estimate what percent of their time is dedicated to each and adjust their cost accordingly.

I don't think this logically follows. An unlimited buffet doesn't let you resell all of the food out the backdoor. At some level of usage any fixed price plan becomes unprofitable.

I agree the 5k cap is interesting as evidence although as you said I suspect there are other reasons for it.

As for evidence against it: The Information reported that OpenAI and Anthropic are 30%+ gross margins for the last few years. Sam Altman and Dario have both claimed inference is profitable in various scattered interviews. Other experts seem to generally agree too. A quick search found a tweet from former PyTorch team member Horace He: https://x.com/typedfemale/status/1961197802169798775 and a response to it in agreement from Anish Tondwalkar former researcher at OpenAI and Google Brain.

This sloppy Forbes article has polluted the epistemic environment because now theres a source to point to as "evidence."

So yes this post author's estimation isn't perfect but it is far more rigorous than the original Forbes article which doesn't appear to even understand the difference between Anthropic's API costs and its compute costs.

I suspect that they are. US tech workers likely make dramatically more than the country you are from with better worker protections.

Stock option compensation rules have been a boon because Meta stock has risen 6x in three years. It's unlikely to do that again. My understanding is that this is symmetrical so if the stock trends down we will see an inflated effective tax rate for Meta.

Recent R&D rule changes allowing software engineering salaries for R&D to be written off seem reasonable and were quite popular on Hacker News. Previously these expenses were amortized over five years so this just pulls it forward. Subsequents years will see depressed expenses.

Bonus depreciation is once again just pulling forward legitimate expenses earlier than before. At worst they are just delaying giving the government its taxes and the corporations gain a few points of interest in between.

All of the tax rules used here are open to debate but none seem obviously wrong or nefarious. This is why people like Reich choose to keep things vague. Corporations brazenly stealing from your pocket is much more interesting than the mundane reality.

Yes this entire conversation is about the ultra wealthy not paying their "fair share". A $14MM exemption is practically irrelevant here.

> most large estates get reorganized into trusts with estate tax avoidance

This isn't so simple. Transfers to a irrevocable trust count against your lifetime 14mm estate and gift tax exemption and a trust in excess of the 14M exemption is subject to gift tax.

Also, this discussion was about "Buy Borrow Die" strategy. Irrevocable trusts don't make much sense in this context because trusts aren't subject to stepped up basis.

See this explanation and corrected graph: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/economic-synopses-6715/w...

This is all aside from the fact that increased shareholder value means a more abundance society regardless of the increase in taxes. We could quibble over the exact distribution of who gains from the enlarged pie but it's certainly not the case the 100% of it goes to capitalists so consumers and employees also benefit.

The poster is suggesting there is some _true_ value separate from what these customers who know their own situations best think. That they are secretly being fleeced and a central planner will somehow better allocate the resources.

There is no evidence presented that there is any state sponsored conspiracy going on. Nor would you need one to explain what we're seeing.

The author also presents no evidence that Pro-Trump accounts are disproportionately represented among accounts lying about their country of residence.

Ultimately, this is just evidence-free gesturing at some grand conspiracy. Cherrypicking the bits that are red meat to her (and apparently HN's) audience.