Yes, and let’s also not count all the investments in infrastructure because you know… like training and staff it’s not a real cost that’s essential to the business.

Anyways, you wouldn’t happened to have heard that from Anthropic or OpenAI?

Somehow we don’t have any actual indisputable numbers (I wonder why) but it is actually quite controversial and some of those who have done deep research on the subject are saying inference IS run at a loss and it might not get profitable ever.

https://www.ft.com/content/fce77ba4-6231-4920-9e99-693a6c38e7d5?syn-25a6b1a6=1

"Inference is not typically run at a loss"

Bro thats called cherry picking

Businesses work on cash in cash out

Right now AI companies make way less cash than they spend overall when you dont include investments

Furthermore, most people use a free version of AI and would stop using it if it cost them anything

Explain how to pivot to profit when the investments dry up, were all waiting

You know that wouldn't happen. Which AI company wants to be the one that says, "we're happy with where the model is at right now" and stops throwing cash into the boiler of the investor hype train and let their competitors exceed them in real or imagined metrics? Clearly firms like Anthropic have to rely on circus marketing tricks like "This model is too dangerous for the general public to see! Ooooh scary! Coming Soon!", and they can't do that without continuous training.

For you and I, the offline models aren't too bad for getting little side projects started, but for major AI firms, the ongoing training cost for the next model and the one after that has become ingrained into the operating model.