There are a number of people who are recommending buying their cheapest plan under the premise that it will put them under since it is a loss leader. Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid. You don’t know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company. So, I’ll state the obvious: If you don’t like a company or industry, the last thing you should do is give them your money.
I’m sure a bunch of people with excel sheets to monitor their credit card points will show up in the replies to argue about how it’s theoretically possible, but I will reiterate: The leaders of the companies are not stupid. If they started seeing a net loss from their sales strategy, they’d change strategies.
I see a lot of people in this thread stating and insisting that people should give them more money, which fells so surreal. I guess people’s mind have been shaped into consumerism to such a degree that they can’t think about a solution to things that doesn’t involve buying something anymore. It’s so hard to believe
While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can’t agree with leadership being smart.
This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they’re actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they’re fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.
Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.
I’ve worked too many places where “b” is absolutely the answer. Even small companies that you’ve probably never heard of where management is drinking the koolaid. They usually don’t like being asked why someone would actually pay for whatever bullshit they’re selling.
The answer, almost without exception, is because one of their CEO buddies told them it was a good idea.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon’s Razor
I assume you’re operating off this principle, and I understand the point, but it’s ill conceived for our purposes. Where malice and stupidity are functionally identical, preparing for malice is equivalent to preparing for stupidity. Where malice and stupidity differ, malice is more dangerous and requires greater preparation. Hanlon’s Razor is a good perspective to prevent escalation in cycles of revenge, but it’s bad perspective for strategy.
It’s safe to assume some portion of highly educated and entrenched powers are willing to undermine the public good for their own gain. We shouldn’t allow our selves or our peers to dismiss potential adversaries as stupid. Even if the leadership was composed entirely of nepo-nitwits, there are competent people working for them, advising them, and benefiting from their success.
I agree with you that nobody here should purchase a subscription with any of these companies, but I will watch happily from the sidelines while AI fanatics engage in this exact behavior, jumping from loss leader to loss leader.
Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid.
Uh… famously untrue. Mental illness has plagued monarchs, pharaohs, and caesers for millennia. That’s long before you get to all the quirked up white boys and trad rad girl bosses currently running things.
You don’t know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company.
Okay, but you can review their balance sheets and their primary lines of credit. Case in point, Sam Altman is heavily reliant on three big financial partners - Softbank, Oracle, and NVIDIA. Two of these are - themselves - hemorrhaging money thanks to large capital outlays that have failed to produce substantive returns.
There are finance journalists who get out ahead of this and report their own analysis. And you can find that in a thousand different private journals, substacks, and podcasts. But you can also go do the grunt work yourself if you’re ambitious.
OpenAI’s financials have been disclosed already (although the official SEC filing is still upcoming). So… just read them if you doubt what you’re reading in the news. But it’s not some kind of secret that the business is operating at a loss, with a fixation on debt-fueled growth. The argument is over future projected revenue, which isn’t something business leadership can be any more certain of than a passive media consumer.
I definitely get the knee-jerk impulse to announce “business professionals know more about business than internet idiots”. Because, sure. True. But the idea that business professionals don’t routinely make bad decisions has some pretty historic well-established counterpoints.
“The business people know more” line is akin to saying “This used car dealer must know more about the vehicles on his lot than I do, so I can trust him”.
Sure, professionals make bad decisions. Usually they’re more complex than they seem on the surface, but there are exceptions. Sure, you can put the work in to out-knowledge them. Doubt anyone here is interested enough to do that, but the internet is a big place.
Regardless, it should be fairly obvious that giving a company you hate money will not cause them to fail faster. We can quibble over the exact mechanism, but the overall point stands.
Regardless, it should be fairly obvious that giving a company you hate money will not cause them to fail faster.
I’ll concede that trying to soak Altman for $14k/mo when he’s already hemorrhaging billions is a bit like pissing in the river.
I might ask what you plan to do with the $14k in tokens you’re burning. If you’ve got a material use case for them, and Altman wants to sell you $20 for a nickel, go wild.
But half the joke of AI is that you’re burning tokens to do nothing. That’s why businesses recoil as soon as they’re asked to justify at-cost AI spend.
They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that “smart people with spreadsheets won’t let them lose money” is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.
They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.
Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you’re right. You’re just right for the wrong reason.
Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.
The more people actively using these tools, even if they’re just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the “active users” metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies “make thier money”.
Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.
Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.
For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.
If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.
I think companies these days are more about valuation (how much people think they are worth) vs profit (what they actually earn). AI companies are loss leaders, yet vcs still fund them anyways. Paying them more money will just add to hype and valuation (eg “our XX service grew YY% which projects to ZZ potential profit”)
I’m really disappointed in this thread.
There are a number of people who are recommending buying their cheapest plan under the premise that it will put them under since it is a loss leader. Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid. You don’t know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company. So, I’ll state the obvious: If you don’t like a company or industry, the last thing you should do is give them your money.
I’m sure a bunch of people with excel sheets to monitor their credit card points will show up in the replies to argue about how it’s theoretically possible, but I will reiterate: The leaders of the companies are not stupid. If they started seeing a net loss from their sales strategy, they’d change strategies.
I see a lot of people in this thread stating and insisting that people should give them more money, which fells so surreal. I guess people’s mind have been shaped into consumerism to such a degree that they can’t think about a solution to things that doesn’t involve buying something anymore. It’s so hard to believe
While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can’t agree with leadership being smart.
This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they’re actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they’re fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.
Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.
I’ve worked too many places where “b” is absolutely the answer. Even small companies that you’ve probably never heard of where management is drinking the koolaid. They usually don’t like being asked why someone would actually pay for whatever bullshit they’re selling. The answer, almost without exception, is because one of their CEO buddies told them it was a good idea.
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon’s Razor
I assume you’re operating off this principle, and I understand the point, but it’s ill conceived for our purposes. Where malice and stupidity are functionally identical, preparing for malice is equivalent to preparing for stupidity. Where malice and stupidity differ, malice is more dangerous and requires greater preparation. Hanlon’s Razor is a good perspective to prevent escalation in cycles of revenge, but it’s bad perspective for strategy.
It’s safe to assume some portion of highly educated and entrenched powers are willing to undermine the public good for their own gain. We shouldn’t allow our selves or our peers to dismiss potential adversaries as stupid. Even if the leadership was composed entirely of nepo-nitwits, there are competent people working for them, advising them, and benefiting from their success.
I agree with you that nobody here should purchase a subscription with any of these companies, but I will watch happily from the sidelines while AI fanatics engage in this exact behavior, jumping from loss leader to loss leader.
Bailout in 3…2…1…
Uh… famously untrue. Mental illness has plagued monarchs, pharaohs, and caesers for millennia. That’s long before you get to all the quirked up white boys and trad rad girl bosses currently running things.
Okay, but you can review their balance sheets and their primary lines of credit. Case in point, Sam Altman is heavily reliant on three big financial partners - Softbank, Oracle, and NVIDIA. Two of these are - themselves - hemorrhaging money thanks to large capital outlays that have failed to produce substantive returns.
There are finance journalists who get out ahead of this and report their own analysis. And you can find that in a thousand different private journals, substacks, and podcasts. But you can also go do the grunt work yourself if you’re ambitious.
OpenAI’s financials have been disclosed already (although the official SEC filing is still upcoming). So… just read them if you doubt what you’re reading in the news. But it’s not some kind of secret that the business is operating at a loss, with a fixation on debt-fueled growth. The argument is over future projected revenue, which isn’t something business leadership can be any more certain of than a passive media consumer.
I definitely get the knee-jerk impulse to announce “business professionals know more about business than internet idiots”. Because, sure. True. But the idea that business professionals don’t routinely make bad decisions has some pretty historic well-established counterpoints.
“The business people know more” line is akin to saying “This used car dealer must know more about the vehicles on his lot than I do, so I can trust him”.
Sure, professionals make bad decisions. Usually they’re more complex than they seem on the surface, but there are exceptions. Sure, you can put the work in to out-knowledge them. Doubt anyone here is interested enough to do that, but the internet is a big place.
Regardless, it should be fairly obvious that giving a company you hate money will not cause them to fail faster. We can quibble over the exact mechanism, but the overall point stands.
I’ll concede that trying to soak Altman for $14k/mo when he’s already hemorrhaging billions is a bit like pissing in the river.
I might ask what you plan to do with the $14k in tokens you’re burning. If you’ve got a material use case for them, and Altman wants to sell you $20 for a nickel, go wild.
But half the joke of AI is that you’re burning tokens to do nothing. That’s why businesses recoil as soon as they’re asked to justify at-cost AI spend.
Counterpoint:
They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that “smart people with spreadsheets won’t let them lose money” is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.
They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.
Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you’re right. You’re just right for the wrong reason.
Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.
The more people actively using these tools, even if they’re just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the “active users” metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies “make thier money”.
Sure, they’re in the business of selling shares not AI-tokens. Standard bubble stuff. Doesn’t change the overall point.
Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.
Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.
For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.
If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.
I think companies these days are more about valuation (how much people think they are worth) vs profit (what they actually earn). AI companies are loss leaders, yet vcs still fund them anyways. Paying them more money will just add to hype and valuation (eg “our XX service grew YY% which projects to ZZ potential profit”)
The only way to stop them is give them more money.
Hubris is what the rich and powerful suffer from, not stupidity. And hubris makes the same blind decisions as stupidity.
Right on point