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.
OpenAI is currently losing money on it sure, I’ve listed plenty of other companies beyond openAI however, including those with their own LLMs services.
GenAI is not solely 100b nor ChatGPT.
but not showing that there’s real services or a real product
I’ve repeatedly shown and linked services and products in this thread.
this a speculative investment vehicle, not science or technology.
You aren’t disproving it’s hypetrain with such small real examples
This alone I think makes it pretty clear your position isn’t based on any rational perspective. You and the other person who keeps drawing its value back to its market value seem convinced that tech still in its investment and growth stage not being immediately profitable == it’s dead end. Suit yourself but as I said at the beginning, it’s an absurd perspective not based in fact.
Is the market cap on speculative chemical analysis that many billions?
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.
I appreciate the more substantial reply.
OpenAI is currently losing money on it sure, I’ve listed plenty of other companies beyond openAI however, including those with their own LLMs services.
GenAI is not solely 100b nor ChatGPT.
I’ve repeatedly shown and linked services and products in this thread.
This alone I think makes it pretty clear your position isn’t based on any rational perspective. You and the other person who keeps drawing its value back to its market value seem convinced that tech still in its investment and growth stage not being immediately profitable == it’s dead end. Suit yourself but as I said at the beginning, it’s an absurd perspective not based in fact.