The premise is that this ultimately replaces all intellectual and physical labor for the rest of time. It’s possible it becomes commoditized as soon as it exists, but in terms of investment dollars it’s either worth as much as you can spend or nothing at all.

> ultimately replaces all intellectual and physical labor for the rest of time

Sounds incredibly valuable, but in reality collapses into Butlerian Jihad fairly quickly when you have 90% unemployment.

Edit: if the claims are true, then this will be far more destabilizing than social media. What do elections mean when the AI-guided political parties are putting out AI press releases for the AI press summaries, which voters have read out to them through their AI? What happens when >50% of the voters ask the AI who they should vote for? You end up with an AI dictatorship where the levers of discontent are fake.

Yeah at some point it seems inevitable that if machines do all the work that creates real "value" and people have no comparable value, in a very practical sense we will all be slaves to machines

Like in Dune, we won't be slaves to the machines, but to the people owning the machines.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them." -- Frank Herbert, _Dune_

Are we free today? For example, I have to work for a living. If I don't, my family and I will be miserable. Let's just hope that future "men with machines" don't decide to kill the rest of us - I'm not sure what use we will be to them.

Your choice is corporations, government, or billionaires. One of those is going to be the "men with machines" that has use for the rest of us.

I think this is the key change. We’re already beholden to a “machine” (the economy) that none of us completely understand or control or created explicitly. It has its own goals and tendencies that emerged from the complexity.

What AI and robotics does is actually create a machine that has no use for humans at all. Ñ

> Sounds incredibly valuable, but in reality collapses into Butlerian Jihad fairly quickly when you have 90% unemployment.

But nobody really knows if that happens or not as a consequence, let alone quickly, because the transition itself only happened at all so far in fiction.

Whatever does happen, I think it's going to be a surprise to at a minimum 80% of the population.

I think business model there pretty simple: to be in the front line when AI will go into the category of landscape-changing trillion dollar technologies. And investors keep pouring their billions exactly for that business model.

>This hype will burst sooner than later and will trigger yet another global recession.

It seems to small of bubble for global recession. I mean if it is a bubble at all, there is all the reasons to believe that the strategy will work with a significant probability.

IMO that's not really a business model. That's a hope that you can come up with one by being at (or near) the front of the pack if one materializes.

See also: Meta's previous push into VR/AR/Metaverse. They spent a hundred billion to be at the front of the pack when that revolutionary world-changing paradigm-shift took off... which simply didn't happen.

That's a bit different though. META invested in a product that, as of now, as very little competition. The QUEST is sold at a slight loss but at least at an approachable price and to a volume that makes them the clear leader in the market at the moment. Moreover, their OS is open source. Clearly, what they want is to sell enough VRs to get the monopoly on the ecosystem and its apps (they basically want to make an Android play store for VRs). You may argue they are far but at least that's a clear business model.

OpenAI's business model was literally "we don't have one: we'll make AGI and we'll let AGI tell us how to make money". This is so idiotic it's not even a scam. xAI will compete on the same plane field. Not sure about Anthropic: they seem a bit more sane.

Their Orion glasses are apparently mindblowing in fidelity as well as the lightness of the glasses. Someone will absolutely make the smart glasses paradigm work so that we don't need to carry around phones anymore, and Zuck is racing to be first. This is because he lost out on the platform wars and was at the mercy of Apple and Google; remember Apple's privacy update that killed much of Meta's revenue? Zuck doesn't want a repeat of that by owning his own platform.

Seconded. I’m very excited for the day when/if their dev platform is opened up and it’s possible to access pass-through vision.

There’s a whole class of educational apps that could open up for people learning in the physical world. Whether it’s building physical things, sports or reading books or notes written in non-latin scripts... the impact will be enormous!

The only thing I'm concerned about is it'd be another locked down platform, like Oculus / Quest already is, only now much more disruptive just like Apple's and Google's (to a smaller extent). I want something more like Windows Mixed Reality or Steam VR to succeed more.

If that scenario comes to fruition, it's literally the only viable business model. Everyone else gets eaten alive .

Apparently not. Apparently xAI can catch up in a year. And we already saw what happened with DeepSeek.

What does the scenario look like where everyone else gets eaten alive?

xAI had the help of the world's richest and arguably the world's most powerful man; most other companies don't have that.

Every bubble has a narrative.

ChatGPT is literally generating billions in revenue. Cursor is the fastest growing company of all time.

This lame HN trope of LLMs having no business model needs to die.

What source(s) are there for cursor's growth rate/revenue ?

Yeah I would be shocked to see that Cursor is the fastest growing company of all time by a good metric...

So, answering my own question, there is this.

https://sacra.com/research/cursor-at-100m-arr/

Sounds legit.

You are comparing apple with oranges. Cursor is not an LLM and yes, it has a business model. So does openrouter and million other applications that can switch API to the low bidder any moment.

> ChatGPT is literally generating billions in revenue.

It’s losing more billions than what it’s generating. Revenue does not equate profit.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/openai-sees-5-billion-loss-t...

True, but presence of significant revenue is still promising. It's much better to have an "expensive compute" problem than a "nobody wants to pay for the product" problem.

> It's much better to have an "expensive compute" problem than a "nobody wants to pay for the product" problem.

That is only true is your primary concern in life is personal wealth and you’re burning other people’s money.

YouTube is an optimistic example.

The bandwidth costs made it deeply loss making for a long time despite having loads of engagement and ad revenue. However over time they became more cost efficient at sending video over the internet and became profitable.

This strategy obviously doesn't always work, with WeWork being the canonical example. But it's not guaranteed to fail either.

YouTube did not have competitors and certainly not open source competitors.

This is a bit before my time but I remember a bunch of competitors to YouTube. They just all sucked.

I was there when YouTube became a thing, and I was running a music video-hosting website that I had built myself (on top of phpBB, even). We were encoding videos in Windows Media and RealPlayer formats.

There were LOTS of funded competitors to YouTube between 2006 and 2009, including Viddler (who paid Gary Vaynerchuk a small fortune to host his WineLibraryTV show there exclusively), DailyMotion (which is still alive today, although no longer a threatening contender), etc.

In 2009 I had a coaching business and was buying marketing courses and software which would deploy your videos across 40+ different video websites (including Google Video which was a separate thing until they acquired YouTube and merged those), and YouTube wasn't yet amounting to 50% of our video traffic.

I think you might be mistaken with the bold statement above.

YouTube's network effect creating a winner-take-most was recognized, pitched, and valued from the very start.

The capabilities of LLMs are impressive, but none of them have published an idea I consider to have the same potential for a trillion $ monopoly that the current hype looks like.

There are far more similarities with the dot-com hype.

No critical first mover advantage in sight. All parts are replaceable for the cheapest variant with little to no down side to users.

They bought youtube for 1.65 billion which is pennies on the dollar compared to what it is worth today.

Technically true, though in fairness it is unlikely the original owners would have gotten YouTube to where it is today. On the other hand there are companies who didn’t recognise they were nothing more than passing fads, refused buyouts, and crumbled.

The monopoly is that no human can ever create anything again without AI. It’s the same psycho trap we put women in, where a vast majority of them will never feel comfortable without makeup.

You could have asked any one of the dozen available LLMs to review this comment.

Most of them would have responded by explaining what a monopoly is, and why this reply makes little sense.

You don't have a monopoly on the word monopoly. I can use it in another sentence if you like, but I won't spell it out for you.

It wasn't obvious at the time YouTube would have a network effect though. It was very dependent on coming up with a great recommendation algorithm, along with monetization and revenue sharing. At the time, YouTube didn't have anything like that, iirc.

Even the basic front page of youtube was of immediate and obvious value to a creator, and would increase disproportionately in value the more people were on YouTube. The same goes for Amazon, and the same goes for Facebook.

All the LLM providers are - extremely useful - tools. Currently I can only see the 'non-monopoly' proportional improvement when their userbase grows from 100 to 1000.

But I might be wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if in hindsight it will be obvious what the real disproportionate advantages there were to be found.

Keep in mind that not only is OpenAI being directly propped up by investor hype, the downstream API users who contribute much of their revenue are also being propped up by investor hype. A big chunk of OpenAIs revenue is actually even more VC money in a trenchcoat.

The biggest marker of a bubble, to me, is that you have money-losing startups selling to other money-losing startups. On paper you see a lot of 'line go up' but it's just a lot of circulation in a closed body of water which will eventually evaporate.

Uber doesn't agree

Uber is an outlier because in a functioning economy that valued workers we wouldn’t have shipped all our jobs overseas and made gig economies the last line between housing and street schizophrenia.

Uber's revenue was never coming from other food delivery startups.

I'm not sure how promising? I can't help but see how easy it would be to change API endpoints to a different platform.

It's loss-making at current usage, and usage per user will exponentially grow.

>True, but presence of significant revenue is still promising.

If started selling 5 dollar bills for 1 dollar, I could generate a lot of revenue with $150B. You wouldn't believe the demand we would see for $5 bills.

As did almost every large tech company today. Amazon lost money for decades.

Are we really still doing this nonsense? If Open AI wanted to become profitable they could do it inside of 12 months - growing companies don't care about profitability (nor should they)

You're way too smug for spewing what is clearly survivorship-bias.

All currently known profitable use-cases are competing on price. All the unicorn examples you're biased for had in their pitch deck the network effect of being the largest.

OpenAI, Grok, etc, have shown no unique value prop or an idea with monopoly potential.

They're still early on the growth curve where there's enough opportunity for future growth that investing in scaling and improvement is more important than turning an immediate profit.

Remember when everyone on HN was sure Uber would never be profitable? Or Tesla? Or Amazon?

I do remember that, and I would say that they are still largely correct. Tesla needed government subsidies, Amazon needed AWS, and Uber needed a pandemic and Uber eats. The core businesses that HNers were referring to are still weak.

Tesla needs government subsidies. Uber needs a broken economy.

OpenAI is losing money on their $200/mo (!!) Pro subscription[0].

[0]: https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/06/altman_gpt_profits/

But making money off their subscriptions in general. They lose it all training models and on R&D

I wonder how long it'll last. Just using myself as a demo customer: I canceled my subscription because Google AI Studio was doing more for me, and it's free. OpenAI is not really competitive at $20 a month anymore.

Yeah not sure. I cancelled a while ago but I subscribed again once o1-preview came out and now o3-mini exists I still find it useful.

Of course, they are clearly cooking something or they wouldn't have just published a benchmark in which they do badly.

Revenue or profit? WeWork at a time also did billions in revenue.

WeWork trapped themselves into a real estate hole, selling services for less than they rented property for.

OpenAI is currently in an explicit non-profit seeking mode using a technology that we have demonstrated 10-100x or greater decreases in compute to achieve the same outcomes.

This is not a declaration that OpenAI will become wildly profitable. This is just me saying that these aren't comparable companies.

WeWork was a scam to enrich the founders of the company. They owned or had interests in many of the properties that WeWork leased from. I'm surprised no one was thrown in prison.

Lots of people dervive great value from things that are too easily reproduced to be directly profitable.

Google gives everyone free access to a good spreadsheet tool, even though Microsoft Office exists.

Web browsers are free, despite the value of the entire internet.

Compilers are free, despite the value of all software collectively.

LLMs being really valuable doesn't automatically mean anyone can get rich from them.

I think everyone last year parroting "moat!" was cringe (like Altman of all people wouldn't know about this already, c'mon), but you do actually need something that other people don't have. I expect Altman's already got stuff in mind, but he's hardly the only one, and that means it's a game of "which multibillionaire with lots of experience building companies will win?", and that's hard for non-skilled normies (in this case incluing me) to guess.

HN has turned into the Slashdot of the 2000s. No wireless? Less space than a Nomad? Lame.

I suspect a lot of the active users on HN today don't remember Slashdot of 2000...

HN already had its ipod moment back in 2007. /.'s ipod moment was in 2001, not as longer before that as I would have guessed.

Re: Dropbox, from a well known user. It didn't age well and we've been asked not to repeat it because it makes the author with connections to this site's operator look bad.

> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

the controversy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067281

> Cursor is the fastest growing company of all time.

I assume you're referring to this:

https://sacra.com/research/cursor-at-100m-arr/

It went from 10M MRR to 100M

The dot com bubble wiped out many billions of dollars in valuation.

The dot com bubble also gave us the most valuable companies in history, like Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc.

It’s a battle royale. Whoever lasts longest gets to profit at leisure

The big companies could crash significantly, but if the technology keeps bringing productivity gains, it will have a big positive impact on GDP over the next decade