Obviously no...? The implications far outweigh the "money sink" notion...

Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable

AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which requires less tech makes all the existing capex look stupid.

I have noticed that those that are the most optimistic about AI almost always talk in a future-tence.

It WILL do this, it COULD achieve that etc.

I think Ed Zitron challenged us all to talk to an AI booster without letting them use future tense.

Not for me, it means I don't have to hire an engineer right now.

There's a distinction.

- For the AI provider it is a massive money sink due to cost/revenue maths

- For the AI consumer it's not a massive money sink if you arrange things so your ongoing costs are lower than your savings

It isn't a simple yes or no overall, only per side of the fence.