this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
418 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

85570 readers
3753 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

YouTube would lose a billion annually early on as they expanded infrastructure to keep up with massive demand ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ

They figured it out eventually, all they had to do was enshittify everything.

[โ€“] MintyAnt@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

The difference being they had a plan to monetize YouTube which offset the operating costs and even could make a profit, in addition to the stuff they over invested in having long term benefits. Aka they roughly could spent a lot to save money later off of what they built.

LLMs are not the same. They cost a shitload of money to run. Actual token based usage without being subsidized by investors would make any LLM cost users so much money that the actual value of it would immediately become major problem. Sure one can, currently, get decent code output by using hundreds or thousands of tokens, or using multiple LLMs / loops, or having agents go burn however many on iteration! But if we paid actual costs this shit would rapidly be shut down.

The AI infrastructure is also not saving money long term. Training is unbelievably expensive. Compute costs are all about gigantic data servers with video cards running, and the economics of all that is way tighter than anyone gives credit for. Those cards last like 3 years. The cooling costs are crazy. You have to have constant use to be efficient. None of these things are able to be covered by AI economics nor does it even make sense to be.

It costs too much, it's just being covered by your money being pissed away by tech investors for a technology that cannot survive.

[โ€“] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

In theory costs could come down with each new hardware generation if the we dont keep pushing models the to max extent of what the hardware can do while pushing size.

E.g Claude Opus today, only trained in a similar size and manner as today, will be cheaper to run on whatever the next GPU that comes out with higher speeds and processing capabilities, unless of course NVidia raises the cost substantially. Given the current situation I think nvidia might do that which would hamper this lowering of costs, but it should possible, if not slower.

E.g 10 years from now it will be cheaper to run a opus similar model. But 10 years from now everyone will want the mythos of today, then. That wont be cheaper.

[โ€“] ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip 2 points 14 hours ago

Sure one can, currently, get decent code output by using hundreds or thousands of tokens, or using multiple LLMs / loops, or having agents go burn however many on iteration!

This always stumps me. Because if that was true, Anthropic products (API, Cache, Claude Cowork, Claude Code) would not be shitty.

They are shitty. They are coded shittily, and Anthropic is unable to solve some bugs for years now. E.g. there is the console flickering bug that they tried to fix 3 times and rollbacked or failed all of them.

Or maybe we define decent differently.

[โ€“] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

That is entirely different from llm models. People like youtube, it has utility. Llm models don't have enough utility to pay for their data centers and we all know it. Why are you simping for them? You believe their hype? That discredits you.

[โ€“] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

"I don't like them therefore no one does" -you

People had the same conversations when YouTube was new and unproven, before it was the household name it is now. Many people thought it would never be profitable and watched them burn billion after billion.

I do think LLMs are overhyped, I'm with you there, but I do think they also provide utility that many use. Is it a bubble that will pop? 100%. But just like the web after the dotcom bubble, it'll never go away.

[โ€“] masterspace@lemmy.ca -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Lmfao, look at this righteous edge lord.

Who needs to think things through, when you can just condemn someone who says anything "black" when you're on team "white".

[โ€“] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works -2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[โ€“] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

Big baby bitch can't even think things through.