You've somehow missed all the "enshitification" processes Cory Doctorow and others have been documenting?
"Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification."
OpenAI (et al.) are all deeply in the "First, they are good to their users" stage of their business plan, but they WILL. NOT. STAY. THERE. Whatever product relying on OpenAI you can offer/build/grow into a business, sooner or later you're going to be squeezed for every cent in profit, in the same way as companies who were convinced Facebook was a great alternative to running their own web presence are these days - having to pay to ensure content that people who've like and subscribed to their pages end up seeing anything they post.
Your $20 subscription is not even close to covering electricity costs - never mind covering capitalisation costs for $1.6 billion data centres with another $1.6 billion dollars worth of GPUs to put in them. (Think about it. Even if that 3.2 billion dollar datacenter was funded borrowing at only 1% - you'd need over 130,000 paying subscribers at $20/month just to cover the interest on the loans.)
So what's your solution? Sit on your hands and build nothing, leaving potentially millions or billions of dollars on the table? Whine about things that haven't happened, may never happen, and could be worked around if they did happen? Google is successful and it charges most people nothing. So it is possible to make a successful business out of providing a service at low(ish) cost.
Of course you wouldn't build a multi-billion dollar data center for a single application bringing in a pittance. But that's not what anyone is doing. Demand is high and data centers can be shared between many different companies.
Or it could wind up being a pretty big waste of resources. On the one hand you have the ability to extract "apparent knowledge" in a conversational form. On the other hand you are killing the ability to create new knowledge and as an added bonus consolidate power into service providers that work worse than ever.
This "conversational knowledge" stuff is probably just a primitive and inefficient form of AI that may be superceded by other innovations. It need not have any real impact on new knowledge, any more than billions of ordinary people babbeling for hundreds of years. The service provider concern is understandable, but I think competition may keep this tech available to everyone who can reasonably afford it. We still have private computers and software despite the possibility for everything to be run from data centers and using proprietary subscription-based software.
"You've somehow missed all the "enshitification" processes Cory Doctorow and others have been documenting?"
I read about it, but don't believe it's a new law now that affects everything with no exceptions. Even is OpenAI wants to go from explore and expand into extract mode, open-source models are getting better every day and will create a decent floor.
> you'd need over 130,000 paying subscribers at $20/month just to cover the interest on the loans.
Maybe I live in a bubble (I definitely do), but that subscriber number seems quite reasonable and of course omits additional revenue from their APIs. Also if OpenAI wants to lose money, be my guest. I definitely enjoyed my VC-subsidized Uber rides of the past.
It's not a property of the company. It's a property of the funding mechanism. Anything getting its funds from VC or hedge-funds will eventually succumb to this - it's the capital speaking.
You've somehow missed all the "enshitification" processes Cory Doctorow and others have been documenting?
"Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification."
OpenAI (et al.) are all deeply in the "First, they are good to their users" stage of their business plan, but they WILL. NOT. STAY. THERE. Whatever product relying on OpenAI you can offer/build/grow into a business, sooner or later you're going to be squeezed for every cent in profit, in the same way as companies who were convinced Facebook was a great alternative to running their own web presence are these days - having to pay to ensure content that people who've like and subscribed to their pages end up seeing anything they post.
Your $20 subscription is not even close to covering electricity costs - never mind covering capitalisation costs for $1.6 billion data centres with another $1.6 billion dollars worth of GPUs to put in them. (Think about it. Even if that 3.2 billion dollar datacenter was funded borrowing at only 1% - you'd need over 130,000 paying subscribers at $20/month just to cover the interest on the loans.)