456
While everyone is trying to build a profitable business using AI, why can't AI companies make a profitable businesses using their own AI? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

if that were true, and the current models were actually good, there would be wide adoption of the current models while people wait for the next leap… instead, you get glimpses of the terrible numbers like 3% of user base is actually paying for these things

maybe we torture our analogies to death but you make it sound like they have the formula for coca cola but instead of selling that, they are burning cash trying to find an even better formula

when the reality is that they have something that is technically drinkable and not officially poison and they are selling it like the next elixir of life (while they burn cash trying to catch up to their own hype)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    People are adopting the current models, mostly coders right now. Most people using LLMs are using them for basic information search, ie. Google AI overviews. Those tasks don't require the top models and don't burn that many tokens so the companies keep them free to get the public exposed to AI.

    Then there's the 3% of people who are the power users using it for work, especially coders. For productivity the top models do perform better and the stakes are higher so they need to perform better. The top models aren't needed for every task, but they shine as an orchestrator of smaller models handling more basic tasks. Coding also requires a lot more tokens, to read all the existing code; to do "thinking" which generates a bunch of output tokens to imitate reasoning; then to generate the code itself; then to review it, adjust after a review...

    All of that equates to large bills for token spend to anthropic or open AI. My Claude bill on my company account is approaching $2,000 this month, and that's about average / what's expected from an engineer at my company. I'd bet that every engineer in silicon valley is burning through a similar amount as well.

    This is why both open AI and anthropic are both seeing extremely high revenue growth. Anthropic ended 2025 with $9b in revenue , they are now on track to hit $100b revenue this year, for reference / the analogy coca cola made $47b this year, it's a larger revenue then every other software company except Microsoft. THAT IS INSANE, no company has ever seen that kind of growth. Yes it's being weighed down by training costs so they aren't profitable but if they even double there revenue next year that could change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    People are adopting the current models, mostly coders right now.

    Models are being push down people's throats, mostly to coders right now... there FIFY

    Most people using LLMs are using them for basic information search, ie. Google AI overviews. Those tasks don’t require the top models and don’t burn that many tokens so the companies keep them free to get the public exposed to AI.

    Again, this is forced, you literally cannot perform a google search (or bing) without getting some AI results whether you want it or not. Then AI companies, like you, use this to pretend it's actual demand for their products

    ... All of that equates to large bills for token spend to anthropic or open AI

    If 3% of people generate the cost the AI companies cannot keep to the prices they charge, then this is the definition of an unprofitable business

    This is why both open AI and anthropic are both seeing extremely high revenue growth. Anthropic ended 2025 with $9b in revenue , they are now on track to hit $100b revenue this year

    No, this is what they ARE CLAIMING THEY WILL REACH. Last year, Altman said it was ridiculous that people were saying they generated $12 billion in revenue... just to then show it was less than that. Now they are delaying their IPO which means the books stay closed for another while longer

    THAT IS INSANE, no software company has ever seen that kind of growth

    Again you are just drinking the koolaid here (not counting all the anecdotal evidence you now apply to all of Silicon Valley). The truth is that whatever revenue they actually have (or claim, "trust me bro"), you can't even know if half of it comes from new investments, creative accounting or selling off assets, you just assume it is more people demanding more of their services and paying through the nose for it even if they have barely showed any tangible results in real life https://fortune.com/2026/08/22/executives-ai-productivity-layoffs-study/

    but if they even double there revenue next year that could change.

    Oh that's it? just double the already inflated revenue they are reporting without any evidence? of course!!! and all I need to fly is to grow some wings, that's it, it's really that simple

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't think you understand the scale, even if half of that number is real that's $50b , that's larger then coca cola, that's larger then Salesforce and every other software company except Microsoft. That's 5x growth on $10b , that is unheard of in the software industry, much less any other industry.

    IDK what to tell you if you don't believe the numbers, yes they aren't official but every credible source is pointing to massive revenue growth. We'll see the actual numbers in the coming weeks as they prepare for the IPO, and if they do turn out to be cooking the books to the tune of $50b , I'll come back to this comment and admit I'm a credulous idiot who fell for the hype. But if they are true I'll also be coming back with an I told you so.

    Also do you think they would cook the books to that extent if they are still going ahead with an IPO? Fabricating $50b in revenue would hurt an IPO once it's found out way more then some temporary hype from a NYT article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago

    that's larger then coca cola, that's larger then Salesforce and every other software company except Microsoft. That's 5x growth on $10b , that is unheard of in the software industry, much less any other industry.

    and you only need the to double it (the full 100 billions} to make a profit lol…

    IDK what to tell you if you don't believe the numbers, yes they aren't official but every credible source is pointing to massive revenue growth

    define "credible"

    Also do you think they would cook the books to that extent if they are still going ahead with an IPO? Fabricating $50b in revenue would hurt an IPO once it's found out way more then some temporary hype from a NYT article.

    the ipo they are already postponing for "safety"?

    https://fortune.com/2026/09/12/sam-altman-openai-ipo-delay-ill-advised-moment-safety-concerns/

    https://www.investors.com/news/technology/anthropic-ipo-delayed-openai-expects-massive-cash-burn/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent