Yes and it should be worse. OpenAI should be forced to take on the cost of compensating every copyright holder it exploited. If that means OpenAI doesn’t exist I’m absolutely okay with that.
this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
418 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
60642 readers
2943 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Same goes for Tesla, it's severely over bloated even if it's bubble has shrunk a bit.
These sort of bubbles should be stopped by the government but why stop that if the politicians themselves are the ones having pumped millions into these bubbles?
First you gotta make a law prohibiting politicians from having stocks, then watch how fast this problem gets resolved
Why should they be stopped by the government? That assumes the stock market should be logical and predictable but why should that be true? It’s all speculation, just a step above gambling, and people should be allowed to.
Tesla is a great example. Its stock has never been at an expected level for their revenue or profit. It’s all speculation about their potential to disrupt the car market (which they have), and predictions like 50% growth per year. Even now, self-driving and artificial intelligence seem a bit far fetched to most of us, but if they happen will be very disruptive.
But yes , politicians should have required ethics standards, including banning insider training. The rest of us have to: how does it make sense for our leaders to have lower ethical standards than everyone else?
Why should they be stopped by the government?
Maybe, but hopefully the existing controls will prevent that from happening again …. Unless overzealous attempts at “reducing regulations” break those. There were quite a few factors around the Great Depression but consider controls like:
- “circuit breakers”, automatically halt trading when a stock or the overall market drops too quickly
- “qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss
- bank requirements for capital, risk, so less likely to collapse
- bank rescues - Lemmy likes to complain about rescuing banks instead of people, but bank collapses during a crisis are what can push the crash off the deep end
Also the overall size and complexity of the modern investment industry should make it much less likely for any one type of investment to drive a general crash.
- “qualified investors” are criteria you must meet for the riskiest investments, basically that you can handle the loss
I'm surprised you're not calling that a government overreach considering your previous comment.
Do you think the current government controls are working and shouldn't be changed at all?
We haven’t had a real depression in 100 years, so something is working. Sure, we have recessions periodically and some are worse than others, but as long as it’s relatively limited.
I think that a lot of regulations were put in place for a reason. Whether they work for that reason or not, it would be better to understand the reason before blindly removing regulations
None of them have come close to the severity of the Great Depression. We’ll never control all instabilities, the important part is limiting their severity
Yes, I’ve been affected by several of these. I’ve gotten laid off during downturns. I’ve been affected by high interest rates. I’ve been affected by unattainable housing. But at least it wasn’t worse
people should be allowed to
uh no they shouldn't
It should be forced to be logical and predictable because Capitalists have made it so the stock market is the only way to really save for retirement.
Our society and economy shouldn't be a fun game for the whales to win at the expense of the rest of us.
You know when you're playing a game and you think this is kinda dumb sure my gun now does 100 more damage but the baddies have 100 more health so really nothing has changed? But it still makes you feel better because well, it's 100 more.
I think that's how these valuations work.
if you're mad at this, don't look at how much xai is worth.
ai is basically just a pump and dump for rich people before the bubble bursts
I'm really excited about your explanation how a pump and dump is going to work when openAI is not even publicly traded. So who's gonna pump and dump what exactly?
How is it pump and dump? These companies aren't publicly traded.
Finance bros who run wall street are all idiots, so they designed a system where no matter how stupid they are, they're always right. If you get a bunch of finance bros in a room and give a really good sales pitch, your valuation can triple despite nothing real actually happening.
In the case of AI, even the foremost experts are uncertain about how useful AI is. Qualified people disagree and no AI based tool has really proved itself to be robust, but it is amazing at fooling people who are either dumb or willfully ignorant, so it's like crack cocaine to anyone who works on Wall Street.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I should fucking hope OpenAI isn’t profitable.
Totally normal. Just keep throwing stupid amounts of money at it so it can find a way to undercut some existing business structure by operating at a loss until that business is dead and then enshittify. Profit! /s
That's how every single company targeting consumer market in the web started. No profit for many years. Majority because of scale of the market. Facebook started making profit after 2012 so for 8 years they were burning money figuring out where to sell their soul to. Now the scale and risk for OpenAI is way bigger, because they have not sold their users fully or we don't know if they sold it and for exchange for what. It would be funny if they at some point alter their privacy policy and turn out to sell people's chats to advertising agencies. They might also go bankrupt or turned out to be a scam that hires thousands of people to answer questions.
It shouldn't be, but it is. 20 years ago, in the far-off year of 2005, a lot of tech companies more or less followed the same path, where it took decades for them to actually be profitable, if they were at all.
YouTube ran at a deficit for something close to 15 years. AI companies are likely following this trend, and running mostly on investment money, rather than being self-sufficient.
Pretty sure youtube still runs on deficit. Storage costs alone would probably bankrupt some small countries.
People don't realise how much the storage and bandwidth costs are for a site as big as YouTube, and it keeps going up due to the huge number of videos being uploaded. People think that Google are making huge amounts of money from YouTube. In reality, they're not breaking even and rely on other, profitable business units (like their Workspace and cloud services) to subsidize it.
There's no way the ads fully cover the cost, and more and more people are blocking ads. Advertisers don't pay for blocked ads, and YouTubers don't make any ad money from your views if you use an ad blocker. (this is the main reason YouTubers say they make less money from ads than they used to - ad blockers)
I guess the cost is worth it to Google just to entrench themselves and their products even further into the lives of most people.
Yeah it's part of their overall strategy to be seen as a core part of the internet / the web. Same as Yahoo in the 90s and early 2000s.
The more people that use their free services, the more appealing they are to advertisers compared to competing ad platforms (broader reach), and the more paid subscribers they get.
Products like Visual Studio, some Jetbrains IDEs, VMware ESXi, and a lot of SaaS products, are (or used to be) free for individuals or for open source usage for a similar reason - people get familiar with them at home, and end up recommending them and buying them at work. A few individuals liking the product can result in large companies signing paid contracts for tens of thousands of users.
And it would give a competitor a foothold to build a competing ad business
Tech companies were in that boat in the late 90s as well.
The dot com bust deflated it somewhat, but somehow the industry got right back to it within a couple of years.
I don't know about now, but Amazon ran a deficit for pretty much its entire existence. Amazon is a bit different though since it was part of an R&D strategy and they could've stepped off the gas at almost any point and been profitable.
That's a long established myth. Amazon started out in 94, and became profitable in like 10 years. Most of their hardcore R&D is self-financed cause they generate just that much free cash.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Capitalism doesn't sell performance. It sell 'potential' and 'perceived gains'.
I sell my dates on my potential wealth and potential penis size. People need to get on the capitalism grindset.
"Both my cock and my investment portfolio are well positioned to overperform both ongoing quarterly and year over year growth as compared to standard cocks and investment portfolios, should volatility continue to remain close to historical averages."
Breakdown of how this doesn't actually mean anything, because I'm autistic:
This doesn't actually mean anything.
"Well positioned to do X" just means 'could happen'.
It doesn't actually promise any outsized gains at all, it ascribes no likelihood to this scenario, it does not quantify anything, at all, and it even conditions the potential hypothetical gains on a the vaguely defined condition of volatility remaining 'close' to 'historical averages', again totally unquantified.
This would be dubious to expect to continue in perpetuity and without deviation, because both for the market and for people's interpersonal lives, the extremely normal pattern is that volatilty remains within 'normal' bounds for a while, but will also predictably have short but highly intense bursts from time to time.
So these entirely predictable volatility bursts break the condition.
... But to someone with less knowledge of or experience with both markets and relationships, it seems good that something is well positioned to exceed standard growth, it seems reasonable that things will stay close to historical averages, so the 'vibe' takeaway is positive, and the mentioned (potential but utterly without basis) outsized growth was both in the short term and enduring year over year!
Even though the actual content of what was said is literally nothing beyond jargon laden flim flam that has no ultimate literal meaning, nor legal liability.
Hey, give credit where it's due.
Some people work quite hard to make sure their jargon laden flim flam has no ultimate literal meaning nor legal liability.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Gotta keep in mind, profit can always be distorted based on how much employees are getting paid.
Someone is making money. In fact, a lot of people are.
The history of the Internet and computers in general is full of investors willing to take seemingly insane chances on overvalued speculative ventures.
Private equity is so pumped full of cash that they basically have nothing better to do with it.
view more: next ›