Again I understand and I don’t doubt you’re getting insane value out of it but if they believed people would spend $2000 a month for it they would be charging $2000 a month, not 1/10th of that, which is undoubtedly not generating a profit.

As I said above, I don’t think a single AI company is remotely in the black yet. They are driven by speculation and investment and they need to figure out real quick how they’re going to survive when that money dries up. People are not going to fork out 24k a year for these tools. I don’t think they’ll spend even $10k. People scoff at paying $70+ for internet, a thing we all use basically all the time.

I have found it rather odd that they have targeted individual consumers for the most part. These all seem like enterprise solutions that need to charge large sums and target large companies tbh. My guess is a lot of them think it will get cheaper and easier to provide the same level of service and that they won’t have to make such dramatic increases in their pricing. Time will tell, but I’m skeptical

> As I said above, I don’t think a single AI company is remotely in the black yet.

As I note above, Anthropic probably is in the black. $4B ARR, and spending less than $100M on training models.

It looks like their revenue has indeed increased dramatically this year but I can’t find anything saying they’re profitable, which I assume they’d be loudly proclaiming if it had happened. That being said looking at the charts in some of these articles it looks like they might pull it off! I need to look more closely at their pricing model, I wonder what they’re doing differently

Why would they want to be profitable? Genuine question.

Profit is for companies that don't have anything else to spend money on, not ones trying to grow.

I guess my genuine question in response is can you tell investors "Please give us billions of dollars - we never plan on being profitable, just endlessly growing and raising money from outside sources"? Unless the goal is to be sold off eventually that seems a bit like a hard sell.

> "Please give us billions of dollars - we never plan on being profitable, just endlessly growing and raising money from outside sources"?

The goal for investors is to be able to exit their investment for more than they put in.

That doesn't mean the company needs to be profitable at all.

Broadly speaking, investors look for sustainable growth. Think Amazon, when they were spending as much money as possible in the early 2000s to build their distribution network and software and doing anything they possibly could to avoid becoming profitable.

Most of the time companies (and investors) don't look for profits. Profits are just a way of paying more tax. Instead the ideal outcome is growing revenue that is cost negative (ie, could be possible) but the excess money is invested in growing more.

Note that this doesn't mean the company is raising money from external sources. Not being profitable doesn't imply that.

I know very little about this. But isn't the inference cost the big one. Not the training?

> My napkin math is that I can now accomplish 10x more in a day than I could even one year ago, which means I don't need to hire nearly as many engineers, and I still come out ahead.

The only answer that matters is the one to the question "how much more are you making per month from your $200/m spend?"

In terms of revenue for my startup, plenty more.