Raising prices will for sure decrease demand and that risks killing the growth story. And even if revenue keeps growing, it doesn’t matter if there are no margins
这直击AI初创企业的商业困境：在“增长叙事”和“盈利现实”之间进退维谷。提价会破坏高增长的投资者叙事，导致估值受损；不提价则没有利润，烧钱速度更快，尤其是在面对可以将AI作为亏本搭售的云计算巨头时。这揭示了缺乏护城河的纯模型公司商业模式的脆弱性。
AI infrastructure developers cannot wait five years. In many cases, they cannot wait six months, because waiting six months costs billions of dollars of lost opportunities.
The quick very rough mental maths on a GW of capacity being worth 10billion USD converts to between 1000-1500 USD per megawatt hour of money they think they could be making if they could sell the compute it powered
As we are on the precipice of a very large wave of lending, I also have to ask myself, is capitalism itself ready for it? More thoughts behind a paywall
Is this a reference to new bonds being issued to cover future investment, now that costs are growing beyond the ability to be covered with free cash flow from even the biggest players?
incentive-misalignment problem
This is provably wrong. 1. Less power-hungry chips are in high demand thanks to mobile computing. 2. Manufacturers keep touting how much less power they consume. 3. Greater power costs greater money. So the incentives are aligned.
Help is coming in the form of specialized AI processors that can execute computations more efficiently and optimization techniques, such as model compression and cross-compilation, that reduce the number of computations needed. But it’s not clear what the shape of the efficiency curve will look like. In many problem domains, exponentially more processing and data are needed to get incrementally more accuracy. This means – as we’ve noted before – that model complexity is growing at an incredible rate, and it’s unlikely processors will be able to keep up. Moore’s Law is not enough. (For example, the compute resources required to train state-of-the-art AI models has grown over 300,000x since 2012, while the transistor count of NVIDIA GPUs has grown only ~4x!) Distributed computing is a compelling solution to this problem, but it primarily addresses speed – not cost.
We live in an age of paradox. Systems using artificial intelligence match or surpass human level performance in more and more domains, leveraging rapid advances in other technologies and driving soaring stock prices. Yet measured productivity growth has fallen in half over the past decade, and real income has stagnated since the late 1990s for a majority of Americans. Brynjolfsson, Rock, and Syverson describe four potential explanations for this clash of expectations and statistics: false hopes, mismeasurement, redistribution, and implementation lags. While a case can be made for each explanation, the researchers argue that lags are likely to be the biggest reason for paradox. The most impressive capabilities of AI, particularly those based on machine learning, have not yet diffused widely. More importantly, like other general purpose technologies, their full effects won't be realized until waves of complementary innovations are developed and implemented. The adjustment costs, organizational changes and new skills needed for successful AI can be modeled as a kind of intangible capital. A portion of the value of this intangible capital is already reflected in the market value of firms. However, most national statistics will fail to capture the full benefits of the new technologies and some may even have the wrong sign
This is for anyone who is looking deep in economics of artificial intelligence or is doing a project on AI with respect to economics. This paper entails how AI might effect our economy and change the way we think about work. the predictions and facts which are stated here are really impressive like how people 30 years from now will be lively with government employment where everyone will get equal amount of payment.