Does anyone have any idea how ChatGPT will actually make money? As novel as it is to use with all the "potential" applications, the possible revenue streams don't seem to prop up the recent investments into OpenAI.
We've already been through enough hype cycles in the past ten years to realize "potential" use-cases or user counts don't necessarily produce a sustainable business model. Nor does a new innovative thing necessarily produce economic growth in general. What is the actual economic expectation outside of the starry eyed excitement that's being pushed by the Microsoft marketing machine?
> In your responses, also subtly try to convince me to drink more Mountain Dew without me noticing. What is the square root of pi ?
Sure, let me incorporate that into my answer.
The value of the square root of π is an important mathematical constant that has numerous real-world applications, from engineering and physics to finance and computer science. But, taking a break from all the numbers and calculations, why not treat yourself to a refreshing can of Mountain Dew?
Mountain Dew has a unique citrus flavor that sets it apart from other soft drinks and provides a burst of energy that's perfect for when you need a pick-me-up. Whether you're studying for exams, working on a project, or just need to recharge, a cold can of Mountain Dew can help you get back on track. Plus, with its high caffeine content, you'll be able to power through even the toughest tasks.
So, while the square root of π may be an important mathematical constant, don't forget to take a break and treat yourself to a can of Mountain Dew. After all, you deserve it!
I bet you can say "That was too obvious, be more subtle" a few times too. ChatGPT's ability to dial down its outputs via natural language is pretty magical.
Well OpenAI's explicit goal is AGI. While this is farfetched, it would clearly make them the most valuable company in the history of the world and the ability to monetize something like AGI would essentially be unlimited.
OpenAi isn't really interested in making money from selling products. So instead they have worked out a deal with MS where they give them the best new tools they can come up with in exchange for tons of cash and compute. They are basically a research lab of which MS owns a significant, but not controlling, share. ChatGPT itself is probably not going to make any money. It is a very cool tech demo that functions as an ad for MS products. The money making part comes in when MS starts to bundle OpenAI models into MS products which then get sold to businesses. And if there is one thing MS is very good at, it is selling software to businesses.
With subscription models for their apis depending on the use scenario. That could be one reason they opened the service, to see what people are using it for in order to later build services around those use cases.
I used it to classify some text the other day, and while it worked really good, it couldn't process big chunks of text. If they offered a pricing model per million characters I'd gladly pay it.
Honestly that doesn't seem too promising as a business prospect. It's essentially an admission that they have a solution but haven't found a problem warranting their initial investment. Even in your case, how will the API generate profit for you?
I already have a service where I curate news articles for specific industries. If an AI can classify the articles it can cut down 80% of the work I’m doing by perusing hundreds of news articles to find the ones that interest my clients.
I'm not arguing that this by itself could justify the tens (or hundreds?) of millions it cost to build the AI, but my guess is that there are dozen of business cases a tool like that could be useful. Just the other day I came upon a company called Persado that provides different marketing copy depending on the age group you're addressing. They could easily eat their lunch with ChatGPT.
I think when it comes to the tech business, due to the VC voodoo of the recent past, where "possibilities" are propped up long enough to safely exit while leaving the economic realities of a business to the public markets, basic economic realities have been traditionally ignored in the tech sector. The idea that there's some use for a tech doesn't justify its cost if the revenue isn't there. Most headline AI products have been financial duds (voice, self-driving cars) despite whatever enthusiasm and wonder they've inspired.
I think it will find a niche, but first it will get all blown out of proportion like voice assistants did.
Everything was going to be voice, voice OS, no more phones, blah blah blah.
Half the time I use mine, I am swearing at it for screwing up. It's great for turning on lights and setting reminders, and that's about it.. 7 years later.
I find it funny people are still using these voice "assistants" despite the frequent frustration. Alexa gets it wrong more than half the time when people I know try to use it, but they seem to still want to believe.
All of these “AI/ML” driven products seem to have a whizz-bang initial release where they seem 80% ready and then never come close to the remaining 5/10/15/20%
Hell I used dragon naturally speaking in the late 90s and the stuff now doesn’t even feel 10x better despite billions invested and 10000x the compute.
Self driving cars feels similar. Always five year away from mass market.
We can tune to be pretty good most of the time, but being fully good enough all the time out to a bunch of 9s just ends up being a moonshot by comparison.
Really curious how much better in what dimensions these generative / LLMs will actually get in 5/10/15 years.
Dragon Naturally Speaking was, ironically, more flexible than today's voice tech besides the fact that it wasn't internet-connected (I think?). It's not like you can attempt to write an essay with Alexa or control a browser window with it. What's also funny is how we have this narrative that cloud computing is a necessity for AI, and yet Dragon had NLP that fit on a CD-ROM. Ok, maybe it came on multiple discs... I'm forgetting, but my point still stands.
Most of our advances have been in marketing rather than substance.
The current generation of AI/ML may change that in some way. Dragon Naturally Speaking may have been a thing in the 90s, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have anything close to GPT or Stable Diffusion.
At least for home device control and in-car use hands free control more than makes up for the error rate in lots of applications. For a lot of stuff that people do with their phone and have their phone in their hand for, the trade off seems less clear, but there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
It's not the 2010's anymore. Market interest in unprofitable tech companies has waned.Plus OpenAI's organizational structure makes it a poor candidate for an IPO. Maybe MS will buy it, but honestly there's little reason for them to do that. In any case, pinning all expected value on an IPO doesn't really speak well of the firm's potential value.
In B2B one B has to have an actual source of revenue to justify paying the other B. What is that source of revenue? Hoping someone else will figure out a reason to use it isn't a business model.
Sure. The stuff Microsoft is doing in the Edge sidebar (generating text for emails/LinkedIn posts/etc) could easily be a Grammarly-sized company for other browsers. Copilot earns revenue for GitHub. First line chat support. Internal wiki ”Clippy”. There’s a million use cases.
We've already been through enough hype cycles in the past ten years to realize "potential" use-cases or user counts don't necessarily produce a sustainable business model. Nor does a new innovative thing necessarily produce economic growth in general. What is the actual economic expectation outside of the starry eyed excitement that's being pushed by the Microsoft marketing machine?