Not even OpenAI's $200/mo ChatGPT Pro plan can turn a profit

With OpenAI being at the center of the AI hype, I would've thought they'd be raking in the dough instead of losing $5 billion. So it's really just Nvidia making money on this bullshit, huh? It'll hurt when the hype dies down and Nvidia drops from the second top spot on the S&P 500. We're all going to feel that one.
- You know, to make money in a gold rush, don't dig, sell shovels.
  
  And Nvidia has really fancy shovels.
  
  What is AI gold then?
- Eh all these companies operate as loss leaders until they capitalise the market.
  CNBC has confirmed that OpenAI expects about $5 billion in losses on $3.7 billion in revenue this year — figures first reported by The New York Times.
  Revenue is expected to jump to $11.6 billion next year, a source with knowledge of the matter confirmed.
  So yeah some small loses here and there to make back far more in the future.
  
  The assumption is that they'll develop some kind of moat, but there are plenty of other AI models on offer or in development. It would also be useless capturing a market when the companies that would be their customers realize they're not making money on the AI themselves.
  
  Which is fine in theory, but "expected" based on what?
  They haven't demonstrated any ability to meaningfully improve their models ("meaningfully" meaning "sufficient to actually address the very serious concerns about their practical usability), they haven't shown any ability to meaningfully capture enterprise sales for their API, and their conversion rate on free users to paid users is abysmal. Their only stated plan to increase revenues is doubling their prices, which given their already terrible user retention doesn't actually seem like a reliable way to bring revenue up. Jacking up prices only works when your users find you indespensible, and everything OpenAI offers can be found elsewhere for less.
  
  You have to get people hooked on your product, though.
  If they and every other AI company just evaporated no one would really be bothered.
  You can't capitalize a market that doesn't really exist.

Fuckin LLM bubble needs to burst already. I want some crazy compute cards to play with.
Also, who knew the only people who would pay 2400/yr for access would bebe the ones who plan to make hundreds of queries per day. What do like, people try to think about value for money before they buy stuff?! What are you all… like not filthy rich?! Ew.

I think this is just OpenAI marketing.
"Insane thing: We are currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions!" he wrote in a post.
The problem? Well according to @Sama, "people use it much more than we expected."
Oh no, ChatGPT is too useful to customers! Altman isn't going to be telling any real problems that OpenAI has to the whole world over Twitter.
- You're right, that's definitely what Sam is trying to do here. Unfortunately for him, he's still an idiot, and he's inadvertently telling on himself here by openly confirming what's been well understood for a while; ChatGPT simply is not profitable to run because the models are so stupidly inefficient. That's a real problem, and one that they've shown no meaningful plan for solving.

That's because the whole thing is stupid. Is made by stupids, marketed to stupids, paid by stupids, and for the most part used by stupids. Because they're stupid.
There's a pattern in there if you look closely.
- I feel like you're putting it down, but for the life of me, I am not picking it up. Can you please try explaining again, but slower? Use simple words. Like I'm stupid or something.
  
  I think he's trying to say it's marketing's fault.
- There is value in current ai but everyone who's in charge thinks it's economic value.
  
  If AI cost peanuts to run, this would be a very reasonable point. But it doesn't. It's staggeringly expensive to operate something like ChatGPT.
  So any use of genAI has to consider the question "Do the benefits provided actually justify the cost?"
  Obviously, in a capitalist society this turns into "How can we monetize this?", but even in a fully socialist society it would still be necessary to ask if this technology is actually providing sufficient societal benefit to actually justify the material resource cost of running it.
- The amount of money stupid gives to stupid, though. Makes my stomach churn. So much for so little.
- Or you're stupid because you can't use LLMs effectively, don't understand their value, and now you're angry because of that.

Strange coincidence right as they want to convert to a for-profit company structure. "Bro we are not even making profits, nothing to see here bro"

What is the use case for a $200 a month AI subscription? It's a lot of money to spend on a novelty, clearly people are finding it useful.
- That’s nothing to a business.
  
  What business though?
- Lazy idiots

Bruh. Meanwhile I'm still with my free and libre Mistral-7B I refined using my own WhatsApp messages and I almost never use it...
- You don't use it because the AI already took over your life and murdered your biological counterpart
  
  Well she ain't too smart then cuz now she has to pay rent so I'd say we're even