I don't see them capturing anything at this point. If inference was profitable then they could compete on price/model and capture the market. Then increase price and pay back the model training.

Feels like they are just pulling in as much as they can whilst competing on capabilities instead. At which point its a case of who can last the longest.

Doesn't feel like Uber/Netflix.

They're trying to do it more like a cartel where all major providers raise prices in unison. The intention is (probably) less specific entrapment and more getting people addicted to a fast LLM. From there, they all play with pricing to give a semblance of choice, without actually overly undercutting each other. At least, in the west.

This is all done to help valuations. The main revenue source are the investor dollars at the prospect that this industry will very soon actually be sustainable and highly profitable. It won't be, but if very soon stays around the corner consistently, the investor dollars keep coming.

Schooling is more than just exams, I'm sorry. There is no need for a cell phone in a classroom.

Not really a comparison when the spend on YouTube was x10 smaller, and Googles core business has always been profitable beyond any hobby spending on YouTube.

I'm FAR form an expert on this, but I believe that the operating costs such as power + cooling form a big part of the lifecycle. I have no doubt that at some point within the 6 years that are being booked, that replacing entire working racks won't be more cost efficient.

That is current practice, yes. The economics of replacing racks then selling the old ones to people who will salvage and resell working components works out better than trying to repair/retrofit in place.

I use auto-complete mostly, so I'm somewhat relieved. When I do need to use the agent, I don't think I will use all of the tokens.

$10 a month for auto-complete on a good UX is good value IMHO.

That is actually nuts.... I'm trying to understand the true costs of AI, wonder how I plug this in!

I'm far from an expert here but isn't that spot price rather than future deliveries? Few people pay for actual spot pricing because it can go the other way, and you want known pricing. You would have a forward contract to delivery gas at say 20p. This is a known price for operation and likely has profit baked in anyway. The excess is what we see now. They can't just switch off as they have a contract to fulfill, but the grid doesn't need the excess, therefore priced at a negative.

In https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... under "Why does the price of gas drive electricity prices?" it suggests that, at the time the CMA report linked was written (now over 10 years ago) the CMA thought as much as 40% of electricity is traded at spot prices.

Now, the CMA report that's linking is talking about a world we no longer live in, in that world the UK burns coal, Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine and so on, and thus the numbers might be entirely different now, but that's the best I could find.

Is this because at one point <username>@facebook.com was a valid communication method? Great concept to be fair, but once you pull back the first layer you can immediately see its problems.

In principle yes, but all metrics so far suggest they are losing money every user interaction. There is very little network effect with these tools so It's not like they can start cutting back on staff and feature deployment.

I don't 'like' Jira, but it gets the job done. It's so easy to onboard users and assign tasks/issues across orgs. Structure is fairly simply and the filters with subscriptions is powerful. Android app that I use on my work phone just works.