Nvidia-Manager sagen, dass KI teurer ist als echte Arbeitskräfte – dennoch sehen einige Unternehmen die zusätzlichen Kosten nicht als negativ an
https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/nvidia-exec-says-ai-more-112000241.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADDZg1bcjRE3_wLPMqTXtKu3kEeJDs5ckR7ile9eAmXjo3beHmhPit_BwlHJeeOZGCV-EU44DC75qyCrlBjvqDGQwkOshS9kgrbE4IJWDhdmgbTghHEs1nQhlXqsY4N-aO8a7D-VgU4wATPypO52xL9ck1fonOIpdITGv3222Fsr
39 Kommentare
This is what drives me batty about AI. Companies think the money is worth it, even if it costs more than real people. So, they just can’t admit they were wrong? I just don’t get it.
Well you can’t expect them to just admit they made a mistake, right?
Because at the end of the day; you still don’t have to pay AI, so it will ALWAYS be worth it to companies.
Ohh they will but it will be to late
Time to trot this out again for context:
Actual quote: „**For my team**, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees“
Who the quoted person is: „Bryan Catanzaro is vice president of Applied Deep Learning Research at NVIDIA, where he leads a team finding new ways to use AI to improve projects ranging from language understanding to computer graphics and chip design.“
Of course cost of compute would be far beyond the costs of the employees… that’s the point.
Because control is all they ever *really* wanted.
Its very interesting to me,. that Jensen is the one trying to tell these guys „you aught to pump the brakes a bit, there’s limits“
It’s because unlike many of them, Jensen not born wealthy.
It’s kind of funny that they don’t care about the extra cost of AI, but Lord forbid an actual worker asked for one dollar raise… then all hell breaks loose.
What price obedience and inhumanity? The AI will commit any crime for you, will never criticize your personal life, will never demand respect or consideration.
Money is cheap, treating your servants like humans with rights is expensive.
The owning class fears and hates workers. They always have; always will.
AI won’t ask for a raise!
“We’re updating our enterprise subscription pricing.”
It’s not about the cost. It’s about the profit. If using AI gets your product to market faster, if using AI 24/7, no weekends, no holidays, no vacations, no resignations, etc… gives your company an edge, it’s worth it if it pays off. It’s not about AI costing less than employees.
That being said I don’t know if those payoffs in productivity will actually be realized (and even if they are, not worth it), I’m just saying that’s what the companies are thinking.
Their plan is to replace people with AI
Highly underlooked.
Consider case where ur whole company runs on agent and ahent requires infra and lots of power to operate.
Current state of LLM is brute force approach where compnaies instead of optimising are simply throwing more compute at it.
But compute has a cost. And that cost currently is more than the cost of an employee.
In theory this is correct, but a great many small businesses are still getting it far cheaper than the actual cost because of the subsidized team/personal plans. It’s not until you actually swap (or are forced to swap) to an enterprise account that you suddenly get hit with like $200 a day (or more) token usage. So yes this is true for the actual cost to the frontier companies, but they’re still providing heavily subsidized subscriptions that mask that cost right now… the question is for how much longer?
This was the case with „Throwing people at the problem“ too; But then we developed stuff like lean practices and the like, started doing cost analysis and other stuff before something was kicked off
They’re betting AI costs will go down over time. That’s why they don’t care if costs more today.
Isn’t eliminating all forms of human labor the ultimate capitalist dream?
I can’t scream at my computer any louder than I am right now.
Same thing could be said about cloud.
Power and control
They are falling into the sunk cost fallacy. They could either pump the breaks on AI or they could admit they are wrong.
AI coding is faster. Now the quality may be…. Uh did I mention it’s faster
ELIZA is never going to take a job. Companies just make cuts. If they could blame it on the wind, they would.
Ai workers don’t need breaks or meals or even time off.
CEOs are people who got mummy and daddy to pay for a second rate qualification. Their job, like Trump’s, it’s to eliminate competent competition. They don’t want to succeed, they want to be the last guy in charge.
Hurting other people is their win. They’re rapists. Sad wizened-dick failures who want to infect us all with their sexually transmitted failure, so they don’t seem like such a waste of jizz.
They don’t need to pay benefits, so yeah
They don’t care about the money. They have a government that will actively encourage AI overuse. AI is easier to control and adjust to your board of directors’ liking than humans
above all professionals and smart people, there are CEOs
and they have no fucking clue about anything, as long as they hype about something they go with it, and get paid by the billions
Earnings are up
Some companies are finding out that paying 300k in AI services that barely work is better than hiring 2 competent engineers. Then needing to hiring said engineers to fix all the f’d code and issues in prod.
Of course not, they don’t have to pay into any kind of retirement or health benefits so it’s a win.
If it works as advertised, the cost of AI will come down, while the cost of humans will go up.
Of course, that’s if it works as advertised.
Once you have business reliant on AI for a decade or 2 the pipeline of human talent would have been obliterated so then there is no going back
I mean, to play devil’s advocate, this isn’t surprising – there are absolutely cases where it’s still advantageous to pay more to avoid having employees. See: any kind of consulting/contracting role.
Also, there is a safe bet that things will get cheaper over time. Either because we refine AI compute costs (more efficient models, higher density compute, whatever) or because we discover good algorithms via AI and no longer need to run llms for some processes.
In other words “we could afford to pay you more this whole time, we just didn’t give a fuck about you”
extra costs need to have some sort of improvement, either quality or speed.
And people say CEOs only care about money. These CEOs aren’t firing people to cut costs, they’re doing it for the love of the game. “It may cost a little more, but god damn I just love firing people so much”