←back to thread

The force-feeding of AI features on an unwilling public

(www.honest-broker.com)
451 points imartin2k | 1 comments | 06 Jul 25 06:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
daft_pink ◴[06 Jul 25 07:20 UTC] No.44478564[source]▶
The issue really is that the AI isn’t good enough that people actually want it and are willing to pay for it.

It’s like IPV6, if it really was a huge benefit to the end user, we’d have adopted it already.

replies(4): >>44478672 #>>44478720 #>>44478841 #>>44480034 #
NitpickLawyer ◴[06 Jul 25 07:59 UTC] No.44478720[source]▶
> isn’t good enough that people actually want it and are willing to pay for it.

Just from current ARR announcements: 3b+ anthropic, 10b+ oai, whatever google makes, whatever ms makes, yeah people are already paying for it.

replies(1): >>44478940 #
meheleventyone ◴[06 Jul 25 08:43 UTC] No.44478940[source]▶
Given everyone and their mother is putting AI in to their products it makes me wonder how that revenue breaks down between people incidentally paying for it versus deliberately paying for it versus being subsidized by VC. Obviously ultimately all this revenue is being collected at a massive loss but I wonder if that carries on down the value chain.
replies(1): >>44479017 #
squidbeak ◴[06 Jul 25 09:01 UTC] No.44479017[source]▶
Amusing the way the argument shifts every time. This one's new though.

"If it was any good, people would pay for it."

"The data shows people are paying for it."

"Aah but they don't know they're paying for it."

replies(2): >>44479050 #>>44479312 #
1. meheleventyone ◴[06 Jul 25 09:09 UTC] No.44479050[source]▶
I don’t think I’m trying to make that argument but thanks for putting it in my mouth. I do pay (or via employment get paid access) for a lot of products that have AI features that I don’t care about so from personal experience I know that at least some of the value chain is incidental.