They'll pay $60-$80/mo for it. Just watch.

Unless you're totally dumb or a super genius, LLMs can easily provide that kind of monthly value to you. This is already true for most SOTA models, and will only become more true as they get smarter and as society reconfigures for smoother AI integration.

Right now we are in the "get them hooked" phase of the business cycle. It's working really damn well, arguably better than any other technology ever. People will pay, they're not worried about that.

It would have to be $60-$80/mo. in value over and above what you could get at the same time with cheap 3rd party inference on open models. That's not impossible depending on what kind of service they provide, but it's really hard.

I use LLMs now and then but not really regularly. I'm nowhere close to paying for a significant subscription today.

The average cell phone bill in the US is $135/mo.

Plans with unlimited talk/text and 5GB+ of data have been available for <$30 for over a decade now.

The AI labs are not worried.

The value is well worth over $60-$80/mo. But conflating that with the market condition is very different.

In the world where you cheap open weight models and free tier closed sources models are flooding the market, you need very good reason to convince regular people to pay for just certain models en masse in b2c market

After 30 years with a shit operating system known as Windows, Linux still cannot get over 5% adoption. Despite being free and compatible with every computer.

"Regular People" know ChatGPT. They know Gemini (largely because google shoves it in their face). They don't know anything else (maybe Siri, because they don't know the difference, just that siri now sucks). I'm not sure if I would count <0.1% of tokens generated being "flooding the market".

Just like you don't give much thought to the breed of grass growing in your yard, they don't give much thought to the AI provider they are using. They pay, it does what they want, that's the end of it. These are general consumers, not chronically online tech nerds.

> After 30 years with a shit operating system known as Windows, Linux still cannot get over 5% adoption. Despite being free and compatible with every computer.

You need to install linux and actively debugging it. For ai, regular people can just easily switch around by opening an browser. There are many low or 0 barrir choices. Do you know windows 11 is mostly free too for b2c customers now? Nobody is paying for anything

> "Regular People" know ChatGPT. They know Gemini (largely because google shoves it in their face). They don't know anything else (maybe Siri, because they don't know the difference, just that siri now sucks). I'm not sure if I would count <0.1% of tokens generated being "flooding the market".

You just proved my point. Yes they are good, but why would people pay for it? Google earns money through ads mostly.

> Just like you don't give much thought to the breed of grass growing in your yard, they don't give much thought to the AI provider they are using. They pay, it does what they want, that's the end of it. These are general consumers, not chronically online tech nerds.

That's exactly the points, because most of the internet services are free. Nobody is paying for anything because they are ads supported

It's nothing to do with Windows but with the applications (including games) that just run on it and the fact that most companies just run it it by default.

I don't see that. I've used LLMs and I've seen very little direct value. I've seen some value though Photoshop etc. But nothing I'd pay for a direct subsciption for.