▲ 328 ▼ ChatGPT spends 'tens of millions of dollars' on people saying 'please' and 'thank you', but Sam Altman says it's worth it (www.techradar.com) submitted 1 year ago by flightyhobler@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (6 children) Don't they charge per token? So they're also making money every time somebody says please or thank you... permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) As far as I know, they lose money on every prompt, even with the $200/mo "Pro" subscription. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure how to interpret your counterpoint. Can you clarify? It's an unprofitable business model unless people pay and don't use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in. As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evotech@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago They are purely losing money The only money they make is from boosting their stock aka future potential value permalink fedilink source parent [–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago It's by usage via API, but all-you-can-eat via web UI permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) As far as I know, they lose money on every prompt, even with the $200/mo "Pro" subscription. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure how to interpret your counterpoint. Can you clarify? It's an unprofitable business model unless people pay and don't use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in. As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children) Well sure, answering the queries continues to cost the company money regardless of what subscription the user has. The company would definitely make more money if the users paid for subscription and then made zero queries. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure how to interpret your counterpoint. Can you clarify? It's an unprofitable business model unless people pay and don't use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in. As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) I'm not sure how to interpret your counterpoint. Can you clarify? It's an unprofitable business model unless people pay and don't use it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in. As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago My point was that "lose money on every prompt" would be true in a technical sense regardless of how much people were paying for a subscription. The subscription money is money in, and the cost of calculations is money out. It's still money out regardless of what is coming in. As for whether the business is profitable or not, it's not so easy to tell unless you're an insider. Companies like this basically never make a 'profit' on paper, but that doesn't mean they aren't enriching themselves. They are counting their own pay as part of the costs, and they set their pay to whatever they like. They are also counting various research and expansion efforts as part of the cost. So yeah, they might not have any excess money to pay dividends to shareholders, but that doesn't mean they aren't profitable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago They are purely losing money The only money they make is from boosting their stock aka future potential value permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago It's by usage via API, but all-you-can-eat via web UI permalink fedilink source parent