Das hat mich davon überzeugt, dass OpenAI kein Geld mehr haben wird
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/opinion/openai-ai-bubble-financing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EFA.13mR.5t_mG8jOtLjn
Das hat mich davon überzeugt, dass OpenAI kein Geld mehr haben wird
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/13/opinion/openai-ai-bubble-financing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EFA.13mR.5t_mG8jOtLjn
35 Kommentare
Nah. They’ll just sign a deal with someone else for billions. It’ll be never ending.
Can’t run out of money if they just „commit to buy“ and never actually exchange the money
From the article
Investors were briefly spooked last July when an M.I.T. study suggested that almost none of this is useful to businesses. Corporations had poured tens of billions of dollars into A.I., yet only one in 20 projects had succeeded, the study reported. But a Wharton study in October delivered the opposite verdict. After interviewing 801 leaders at U.S. companies, Wharton concluded that three-quarters of the businesses were getting a positive return on their A.I. investments.
If the truth lies in the middle, this is a triumph. Businesses usually take decades to deploy new technologies successfully; progress after three years is striking. As A.I. keeps improving, and workers grow more adept at collaborating with the machines, the gains will stack up. Over a billion people use generative A.I. models every month. Not all uses are productive, but many will be.
This is a terrible article in disguise of AI criticism, but it really claims the exact opposite, tries to say “AIs are wonderful”. It is so bad that it seems written by an AI.
At my work, AI is utterly useless for generating new ideas or anything of groundbreaking value.
IMO it is only useful for menial/repetitive tasks after you’ve established a strict prompt & framework – and even then, the output needs to be verified for accuracy
I think the real problem with the business model behind AI is that we are not that far away from computer hardware to easily run large models locally and the best models being open source and free ones. The corps will have at most a few years to earn money on these services before they become easy and cheap for everyone to run locally.
The problem with venture capitalism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
You can’t run out of cash if you never use your own cash to build it.
Does the article mention Ed Zitron at all? Because he’s been pretty vocal about AI’s bunk financial future and shows his work.
For those of us who lived through the dot-com bubble, this all feels very familiar. No doubt some of it will succeed but much of it will not, and anyone making predictions right now will be mostly wrong.
Computer hardware companies are starting to spin up capacity to meet the enormous AI demand, which may not be sustainable and could potentially plummet if there’s a bubble burst.
I’m anti-AI while using AI daily. Lol. Because I found out every query and every generated picture costs Microsoft, Google or OpenAI $2-6 in energy costs. I figured the quickest way to speed the collapse is by using it for stupid shit. I turn 3 to 4 pictures a day into video. Then delete them.
Nah come on, once they roll out ads it will be a cash volcano. They have a huge amount of attention.
The “Wharton study” was just asking execs? Yeah, no crap, they lied or are out of touch. The sunk cost fallacy and FOMO going on is insane. Of course the people who are overpaid hype salesmen would say it’s going great.
This is such a stupid time to be alive.
„Since the release of ChatGPT a little over three years ago, A.I. models have acquired novel capabilities at a remarkable rate, repeatedly defying naysayers.“
Nope. ChatGpt 5 was worse than 4.0 and the naysayers have been proven right as companies rehire the people they fired and everyone else finds out how many errors there are in everything they do.
„They have learned to generate realistic images and videos, “
Of children.
„to reason through increasingly complex logic and math problems,“
AI plus math = fail. Who wrote this crap?
„to make sense of Tolstoy-size inputs.“
„make sense of…“ Okay buddy.
„The next big thing will be agents: The models will fill digital shopping baskets and take care of online bills. They will *act* for you.“
Boy that’s what I need. Someone to look through my pantry (somehow…) and see that I’m out of Vienna sausages, peanut butter and BBQ sauce.
And pay for it to do that. Sure thing.
Will it take on my online bills? You mean the way automatic payments I have set up already can do without AI?
What a clownshoes paragraph.
From the moment GPT-3 demonstrated diminished ROI compared to GPT-2, I knew the bubble will inflate until it finally pops. That’s a Product Engineering 101 sort of phenomenon.
What MIT did : Interviews, surveys, and an actual analysis of 300 publicly disclosed AI implementations
What the Wharton School did: Surveys. Also the only people allowed to take those surveys are Senior Decision Makers in HR, IT, Legal, Marketing/Sales, Operations, Product/Engineering, Purchasing/Procurement, Finance/Accounting, or General Management.
No shit the Wharton study says AI is great actually.
Fun fact: The top 5 private AI companies are valued higher than all 473 IPOs during the dot com bubble combined
Is it because nobody wants to pay for their service, at least not enough to even approach breaking even?
This is such a weird article. If your staring point is “trillions of dollars of investment will be required before we see this extremely nebulous and poorly defined ROI” then the problem with that isn’t that the popular startup might be unable to get trillions of dollars of capital.
Charging for subscriptions? Hahaha. What planet are these people on? I won’t use AI slop now, and it’s free. No way eve im goi g to pay to have may brain addled by AI slop.
>This is the wrong worry; A.I.’s promise is real. The big question in 2026 is whether capital markets can adequately finance A.I.’s development. Companies such as OpenAI are likely to run out of cash before their tantalizing new technology produces big profits.
This is the wrong worry; my dream of winning an NBA championship is real. But the real question is whether I can grow two feet and become a world class athlete.
It will run out of money, because if they’re right about what they’re predicting, then there won’t be enough people with decent jobs to buy anything besides food and shelter. And if they’re wrong, then it was all just hype.
It feels like we’ve entered a new stage of capitalism in which startups (OpenAI here) develop a new technology, it takes off, they raise and subsequently burn through investor capital developing the tech while failing to monetize it properly, and eventually fizzle out…. all the while our “legacy” tech brands like Google simply cherry pick the tech, poach key talent, develop a competing product (which is also not profitable, but they don’t exactly need it to be) and simply… wait out said burnout from the guys who brought it to market first.
Ai posts, posted by Ai bots. Can’t wait for Reddit to eat itself alive with bots lol
Microsoft charges $30 per month for a licensed 365 user to use Copilot. They’re already making money off it and the product is 60% garbage.
It was 80% garbage 6 months ago, so I guess it’s getting better as it continues to collect data.
This article ignores the fact that the current regime supports it so they have unlimited taxpayer funds at their disposal.
was it spending 1.5 trillion with like 10 billion in sales or
I have a client who has spent the past year paying for a LLM developer to build a AI that essentially compiles Executive Reports and Data sets of Research information.
So when we implement CoPilot. He’s out of a job.
As for the client, they spent too much money on a developer who promised a lot, only for us to eventually realize, it will never do what we want it to do, because we still have to „train it“.
In 2023 a memo from Google leaked that said that they don’t have a moat and neither does OpenAI, the author was right. Regardless of the merit of the technology writ large the fact that OpenAI is effectively pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into what is effectively a commodity is insane. The data, the algorithms, the hardware, it’s all basically a commodity, an expensive one, but a commodity nonetheless. The future of the technology is up in the air but the future of OpenAI is very much not, there’s no way they succeed on the scale Altman is hyping.
Whoever takes the fall will be bailed out by the government
Remember that Beavis and Butthead episode where our heroes were supposed to sell candy?
I used to casually use AI for work maybe a couple times a month. It hasn’t improved at all, and it constantly tells me wrong things with its first reply, or references out of date things… and my company gives us a paid version so this is the “good” one.
Don’t use it at all anymore, it’s not getting better and I don’t trust it
They cost a fuck ton to operate, have no business model, and when you look too close, the product is little more than an _amazing_ toy? Or is it something else?
If you actually read the article, the majority is spent speculating on a fantastic AI future that could happen if only people dumped even more money into the pit. It reads like propaganda.
Tesla netted just over $7 billion in profits in 2024 but the company was valued at $1.3 trillion. I don’t understand at all but profitability doesn’t necessarily matter in $2026.