• T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    50 minutes ago

    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.

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    44 minutes ago

    absolutely should. america lives in an idiocracy. a trump meme coin could be valued at 100trillion $ and thats fine. if you want feudalism with extra steps, this is exactly that. go buy some golden sneakers and maybe they’ll be worth a million some time or not.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    As a major investor into Open AI future, I’d gladly exchange all my non-existing stakes for a blowjob by fugly Sam Altman. It wouldn’t turn into any profits, but for some time, he’d have something in his mouth that isn’t a lie or a sketchy promo. I believe, some on Open AI board would even pay me to keep him silent.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • einlander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I sell my dates on my potential wealth and potential penis size. People need to get on the capitalism grindset.

      • seven_phone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        10 hours ago

        And women sell dates on their potential to do that thing that was discussed but then try to backtrack by pretending they thought it was a joke and didn’t even bring a banana.

    • sem
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Aka why not to have headlines in the form of a question.

  • seven_phone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 hours ago

    So now we are actually to the point where we can ask if a corporation or more widely anything at all has any value if it makes no profit.

    There are people in the world who by luck of birth or circumstance have amassed obscene wealth and they after the fact are trying to convince everyone that profit is the only thing of value. These are the real public enemies.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      This is the post-scarcity shift. This is how it happens.

      We need to take, by force, those who have too much and give it to those who have too little.

      They will be kicking and screaming. That means we’re doing something right, because they are not our allies.

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      People want to jump on the bandwagon and assume they know everything about new technology.

      It’s really easy to take advantage of these laymen with things like traveling to mars or… building underground highways of tubes so people can use transportation like those bank chutes.

      I hope one day, we as a species can recognize these patterns so that we may take steps to break them.

      We don’t need some “big new tech” to solve the world’s problems. We need to turn around and help out our fellow man who has less than us. We have the tools, just not the desire.

      It’s a cultural problem.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s typical for tech companies to organize as nonprofits and then restructure because they are losing cash?

      Not sure if I’m misunderstanding you or what part you think is typical

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Yeah, but not for shitty companies. I’m down to invest in a mom and pop if it helps get it off the ground. Fuck pump and dumps, and people who inflate bubbles.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      No, not quite. They’re funded by venture capitalists, who put money into investment rounds on the understanding (speculative gamble?) that the company will have a given future value. The last funding round was $6.6bn on the basis that the company will be worth $157bn when it is floated on the stock market. Ed Zitron has quite a good analysis on his page, and also why their business is a complete pile of shite:

      https://www.wheresyoured.at/oai-business/

      • brlemworld@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        They still aren’t required to go through SEC regulations and can make up some PR nonsense evaluation.