←back to thread

321 points jhunter1016 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Roark66 ◴[] No.41878594[source]
>OpenAI plans to loose $5 billion this year

Let that sink in for anyone that has incorporated Chatgpt in their work routines to the point their normal skills start to atrophy. Imagine in 2 years time OpenAI goes bust and MS gets all the IP. Now you can't really do your work without ChatGPT, but it cost has been brought up to how much it really costs to run. Maybe $2k per month per person? And you get about 1h of use per day for the money too...

I've been saying for ages, being a luditite and abstaining from using AI is not the answer (no one is tiling the fields with oxen anymore either). But it is crucial to at the very least retain 50% of capability hosted models like Chatgpt offer locally.

replies(20): >>41878631 #>>41878635 #>>41878683 #>>41878699 #>>41878717 #>>41878719 #>>41878725 #>>41878727 #>>41878813 #>>41878824 #>>41878984 #>>41880860 #>>41880934 #>>41881556 #>>41881938 #>>41882059 #>>41883046 #>>41883088 #>>41883171 #>>41885425 #
zuminator ◴[] No.41881938[source]
Where are you getting $2k/person/month? ChatGPT allegedly has on the order of 100 million users. Divide that by $5b and you get a $50 deficit per person per year. Meaning they could raise their prices by less than four and a half dollars per user to break even.

Even if they were to only gouge the current ~11 million paying subscribers, that's around $40/person/month over current fees to break even. Not chump change, but nowhere close to $2k/person/month.

replies(5): >>41882007 #>>41882136 #>>41882244 #>>41882685 #>>41884430 #
layer8 ◴[] No.41882685[source]
> ChatGPT allegedly has on the order of 100 million users.

That’s users, not subscribers. Apparently they have around 10 million ChatGPT Plus subscribers plus 1 million business-tier users: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-coo-says-chat...

To break even, that means that ChatGPT Plus would have to cost around $50 per month, if not more because less people will be willing to pay that.

replies(1): >>41883064 #
zuminator ◴[] No.41883064[source]
You only read the first half of my comment and immediately went on the attack. Read the whole thing.
replies(2): >>41884682 #>>41884737 #
1. ◴[] No.41884682[source]