Speaker 1: Au Zone Media.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your host ed zitron.
Speaker 2: Last part I really laid down how bad things are
Speaker 2: for open Ai, how bad a company they are, how
Speaker 2: they spent nine billion dollars to lose five billion dollars,
Speaker 2: how bad things look. But open Ai they have users.
Speaker 2: I mean the users lose the money. Every single user
Speaker 2: paying or not loses the money. They can only survive
Speaker 2: if they're given more money. They will literally die if
Speaker 2: not given more venture capital money. And that really bothers me,
Speaker 2: And that bothers me a great deal. Listen to the
Speaker 2: episode again if you want to really understand why. But
Speaker 2: let's start this one with a very very simple question.
Speaker 2: Is generative AI a real industry? Look, the large language
Speaker 2: model paradigm is yet to produce a successful mass market product,
Speaker 2: and no, large language models are not a success, nor
Speaker 2: are they mass market. I know you're gonna say chat
Speaker 2: GPT is huge. We've already been through that. I just
Speaker 2: talked about that. But surely, surely, right like, it wouldn't
Speaker 2: just be open Ai, right like, we've been through this.
Speaker 2: But if generative AI was a real industry, there'd be
Speaker 2: multiple other players with massive customer bases as a result
Speaker 2: of how revolutionary it was, right, like at least close, right,
Speaker 2: maybe like half the size, a quarter of the size,
Speaker 2: right right, wrong, wrong, so wrong, so very wrong, so
Speaker 2: fucking wrong. It boils my blood. It makes me scared
Speaker 2: for the future, for the market for Silicon Valley. The
Speaker 2: venture capitalists are so fucking wrong, and so are the hyperscalers. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Speaker 2: Let's look at some estimated numbers that I got from
Speaker 2: data intelligence firm Center Tower, and that's referring to these
Speaker 2: monthly active users on apps and similar web which is
Speaker 2: just unique monthly active visitors to websites. And this is
Speaker 2: for the biggest players in AI in January twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: And I must be clear, the following really fucked me
Speaker 2: up a little. So open AI's chatgpt had three hundred
Speaker 2: and thirty nine million active users on chat GPT's app
Speaker 2: and two hundred and forty six million unique monthly visitors
Speaker 2: to chatgpt dot com in January twenty twenty five. Pretty good, right,
Speaker 2: One would assume that everybody else, especially the hyperscalers, they'd
Speaker 2: be pretty close behind. Right, They've got way more money,
Speaker 2: They've got a ton of advertising, and one would be
Speaker 2: wrong Google Gemini. Google's Gemini had a pathetic eighteen million
Speaker 2: monthly active users on the Gemini app and a mere
Speaker 2: forty seven point three million unique monthly users on their website.
Speaker 2: For COMPARISONCNN dot com has over one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: million unique monthly visitors and did not require purchasing billions
Speaker 2: of dollars of GPUs. Nevertheless, though, Microsoft, who funds open Ai,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't have blown this right. They wouldn't have got
Speaker 2: a tiny amount of US right. Wrong, so very wrong.
Speaker 2: Microsoft Copilot had an embarrassing eleven million monthly active users
Speaker 2: on the Copilot app and fifteen point six million unique
Speaker 2: monthly users visitors. I mean to copilot dot Microsoft dot com.
Speaker 2: They had a fucking Super Bowl commercial a year ago. Man,
Speaker 2: what the hell? These are terrible numbers for a company
Speaker 2: with a market capitalization of three trillion dollars that spent
Speaker 2: over seventy five billion dollars on capital expenditures in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four. But you know what, maybe it's just that
Speaker 2: big tech hasn't worked it out. The plucky start of
Speaker 2: the Silicon Valley must have, right. I mean, we've all
Speaker 2: heard about perplexity. They seem to be giving away pro
Speaker 2: accounts all the time. They're pretty big, right, they must
Speaker 2: be wrong. They had an abominable eight million monthly active
Speaker 2: users on their app in January and a poultry ten
Speaker 2: point six million unique monthly visitors to perplexity dot ai.
Speaker 2: This company's raised six hundred and sixty five million dollars.
Speaker 2: They have a multi billion dollar valuation. This is absolutely
Speaker 2: fucking pathetic. What are we doing here? But you know,
Speaker 2: maybe I'm just being a sour pus. Maybe I'm just
Speaker 2: being just being a hater. You know, I sit in
Speaker 2: my hates thrown and I hate it. I'm like, ooh,
Speaker 2: I hate the company so much. Right, that's it. It's bias. Obviously,
Speaker 2: there's one hulking Juggernau I've been leaving out and I
Speaker 2: would never ever ever leave them out. Because Anthropic has
Speaker 2: raised fourteen point seven billion dollars, one would assume with
Speaker 2: all this money, with all of the press attention, all
Speaker 2: of the people saying that Warrio Ami Day, sorry, Dario
Speaker 2: Ami Day, will have Agi in twenty twenty seven around there, right,
Speaker 2: they'd be huge. They must be huge. They must be huge,
Speaker 2: right right? Right then, So flipping wrong. Anthropics Claude had
Speaker 2: I a shit you not two million monthly active users
Speaker 2: on the claud app and eight point two million unique
Speaker 2: monthly visitors the Claude the AI and that's the web
Speaker 2: based version of their app. These numbers are absolutely abominable.
Speaker 2: They're trash, they're garbage. Anyone's saying that Anthropic as a
Speaker 2: real product is talking out of their asshole. I'll get
Speaker 2: to API calls later, don't you worry. But it's time
Speaker 2: to wake up and stop yammering about these companies like
Speaker 2: they're building the future or have any real product market fit.
Speaker 2: What a goddamn joke. I am furious. Getting these numbers
Speaker 2: pissed me off so much. I have had these chonder
Speaker 2: fucks telling me, oh Ed, you have no idea how
Speaker 2: big this is? Oh Ed, They're tiny. This is so small.
Speaker 2: I know. I said it'd be calm. I said it'd
Speaker 2: be calm. But when you spend two years having people
Speaker 2: calling you a hater and a cynic at, a pessimist
Speaker 2: and a pig and a dog and they spray you
Speaker 2: at their hoses, you get a little angry about this stuff.
Speaker 2: And also, why is nobody I'm a pr guy who
Speaker 2: does a podcast and a newslre why am I the
Speaker 2: person to say it? But what's really funny is that
Speaker 2: the recently emerged deep Seak had twenty seven million monthly
Speaker 2: active users on the deep seak Act app and seventy
Speaker 2: nine point nine million unique monthly visitors to deepseak dot
Speaker 2: com in January. This figure, by the way, doesn't capture
Speaker 2: deep Seak's China based users, who at least on mobile
Speaker 2: access the app through a variety of different marketplaces. From
Speaker 2: what I can tell, the deep Seak Act app I
Speaker 2: keep speaking like Kathy, I guess, but I'm gonna keep
Speaker 2: this going. We don't need to edit that the app
Speaker 2: has nearly ten million downloads on the Vivo Store, which
Speaker 2: is just one of the different Android app marketplaces serving
Speaker 2: mainline China. It's not even one of the biggest. But
Speaker 2: for the sake of simplicity, assume that all of these
Speaker 2: numbers refer to those outside of China, where most, if
Speaker 2: not all, of the Western made chatbots are blocked by
Speaker 2: the Great Firewall. But let me put this all into perspective.
Speaker 2: The entire combined monthly active users of Microsoft Copilot, Claude Gemini,
Speaker 2: Deep Seek, and it perplexitis apps amount to sixty six
Speaker 2: million monthly active users, or nineteen point four to seven
Speaker 2: percent of the entire monthly active users of chat GPT's
Speaker 2: mobile app. Web traffic slightly improves things, I say sarcastically,
Speaker 2: with one hundred and sixty one million unique monthly visitors
Speaker 2: that visited the websites for Copilot, Claude, Gemini, Deep Seek,
Speaker 2: and Perplexity making up sixty five point sixty nine percent
Speaker 2: of all the traffic that went to chatgpt dot com. However,
Speaker 2: I'd argue that including deep Seek vastly overinflates these numbers.
Speaker 2: They're an outlier, and they're also relatively new, and they've
Speaker 2: enjoyed a big moment in the media, so we can
Speaker 2: leave them out for a second. Without deep Sea, Copilot, Claude, Gemini,
Speaker 2: and Perplexity made up a total of thirty nine million
Speaker 2: monthly active users across their apps, and a grand total
Speaker 2: of eighty one point seven million unique monthly visitors Without
Speaker 2: chat gpt, it appears that the entire general IVAI app
Speaker 2: market is a little more than half the size of
Speaker 2: Pokemon Goo its peak, which had around one hundred and
Speaker 2: forty seven million monthly active users. Though this number is
Speaker 2: kind of hard to chase down. I've heard two hundred million. Nevertheless,
Speaker 2: even if it was one hundred million, it would still
Speaker 2: be more. And while one can say I missed a
Speaker 2: few apps xais, Grock and Mason's rufirst character Ai, there
Speaker 2: isn't really a chance in hell they cover the shortfall.
Speaker 2: These numbers aren't simply pissed poor. They're a sign that
Speaker 2: the market for general ivai is incredibly small, and based
Speaker 2: on the fact that every single one of these apps
Speaker 2: only loses money, they're actively harmful to their respective investors
Speaker 2: or owners. I do not think this is a real industry,
Speaker 2: and I believe that if we pulled the plug on
Speaker 2: the venture capital aspect tomorrow, it would die. It would
Speaker 2: die within a month, maybe two. But let's talk about
Speaker 2: API course, and this is when companies plug their apps
Speaker 2: into open AIS models, anthropics models, Google's models, any company's
Speaker 2: models to power some sort of supposedly amazing Generalivai feature.
Speaker 2: And the counter I hear a lot is that these
Speaker 2: API calls are a kind of hidden adoption, that there's
Speaker 2: this massive swell of engaged, happy customers using Genera ivai.
Speaker 2: They're just not using it on any of the major apps,
Speaker 2: and the connection to these models that that's the real
Speaker 2: success story here, because people are adopting general ivai, they're
Speaker 2: just doing it through other apps. This isn't the case.
Speaker 2: Open Ai, as I've established, is the largest player in
Speaker 2: general ivai, making more revenue roughly four billion dollars in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, though they lost five billion dollars after
Speaker 2: revenue again open ai lost. They spent nine billion dollars
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four to lose five billion dollars. Anyway,
Speaker 2: they still made more than everyone else in every other
Speaker 2: private AI company. The closest I can get to an
Speaker 2: estimate on how many actual developers integrate their applications through
Speaker 2: open Ai is a statement from open ai from October
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four's dev Day, where they said they had
Speaker 2: over three million developers building apps using open AI's models.
Speaker 2: And as I've discussed in the past, open AI's revenue
Speaker 2: is heavily weighted towards its subscription business, with licensing access
Speaker 2: to its models like GPT four to O making up
Speaker 2: less than thirty percent around a billion dollars of their revenue,
Speaker 2: and subscriptions to their premium products like chech, GPD plus teams, business,
Speaker 2: pro government and so on make up the majority, around
Speaker 2: three billion dollars in twenty twenty four. My argument's fairly simple.
Speaker 2: Open ai is the most well known player in GENERITIAI,
Speaker 2: and thus we can extrapolate from it to draw conclusions
Speaker 2: about the wider industry. In the event that there was
Speaker 2: a huge, meaningful industry integrating generative AI into distinct products
Speaker 2: with mass market consumer adoption, open AI's API business would
Speaker 2: be doing far, far more revenue. But let's get a
Speaker 2: little more specific about what an API call is. When
Speaker 2: a business plugs open AI's models or any other GENERATIVEAI
Speaker 2: companies models into their apps and the customer triggers one,
Speaker 2: such as just asking the app to summarize an email,
Speaker 2: open ai charges the business both for the prompt, which
Speaker 2: is the input, and the result, which is the output.
Speaker 2: As a result, where weekly active users might be indicative
Speaker 2: of attention to open AI's products, API calls are farm
Speaker 2: more more indicative consumer and enterprise adoption and usage. In fact,
Speaker 2: to be clear, I acknowledge that there are a lot,
Speaker 2: a non specific amount, but a fair amount of app
Speaker 2: developers and companies adopting GENERATIVEAI. However, judging on the revenue
Speaker 2: both from open AI's developer focused business and the lack
Speaker 2: of any real revenue for any business integrating GENERATIVAI, I
Speaker 2: hypothesize that customers, which include developers integrating open AI's models
Speaker 2: into both consumer facing apps and enterprise focused apps, are
Speaker 2: not actually using these features that much. I should add
Speaker 2: the open ai makes about two hundred million dollars a
Speaker 2: year selling their models through Microsoft, meaning that their API
Speaker 2: business may be as small as eight hundred million dollars. Again,
Speaker 2: this is not profit, its revenue. Before we go forward,
Speaker 2: there is also an alternative open ai is charging way, way,
Speaker 2: way less for their models than they should, which is
Speaker 2: an argument I made in the subprime AI crisis last year.
Speaker 2: But accepting this argument means that at some point open
Speaker 2: ai will have to become profitable, which they've shown no
Speaker 2: signs of doing so, or they're going to have to
Speaker 2: charge the action costs of running their unprofitable models. Do
Speaker 2: you not see the problem there? If they have to
Speaker 2: raise all the prices for this thing that people aren't
Speaker 2: really using, why would they keep it? But you're wondering,
Speaker 2: probably how bad is this for anthropic It's pretty disastrous.
Speaker 2: The Information reported recently that Anthropic was projected, and I
Speaker 2: should be clear this means made up, that they will
Speaker 2: make at least twelve billion dollars in revenue in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty seven, despite the fact they only made around nine
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars in twenty twenty four and lost five
Speaker 2: point six billion dollars. Somehow, Anthropic is currently raising two
Speaker 2: billion dollars at a sixty billion dollar valuation for a
Speaker 2: business that loses billions of dollars a year, with an
Speaker 2: app within in store base of two million people and
Speaker 2: a web present smaller than that of a niche hobbyist
Speaker 2: news outlet. The Information also adds and CNBC reports as
Speaker 2: well that sixty to seventy five percent of that revenue
Speaker 2: came from API course, though this number is from September
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. So what they're making most of their
Speaker 2: money from people integrating it, and they're making what a
Speaker 2: few hundred million dollar dollars and it costs them billions
Speaker 2: of dollars to serve this small customer base. This company
Speaker 2: is not worth sixty billion dollars. Anthropic has raised fourteen
Speaker 2: point seven billion dollars to create an also ran large
Speaker 2: language model company that some people like more than open Ai,
Speaker 2: with a competing consumer facing large language model called Claude
Speaker 2: that has an install base of maybe two percent of
Speaker 2: the five free to play games made by Clash of
Speaker 2: Clans develop a super cell. Anthropic, much like open Ai,
Speaker 2: has categorically failed to productize its large language model, but
Speaker 2: the only product it appears to have pushed being computer use,
Speaker 2: which is like operator by open Ai, and it's similarly useless,
Speaker 2: and it can sometimes successfully do in minutes what would
Speaker 2: only take you a few seconds with your hands. Anthropic,
Speaker 2: like OpenAI, also has no mote. While they have, they've
Speaker 2: got kind of chain of thought reasoning in their models
Speaker 2: that has been, as I mentioned, commoditized by deep Seek.
Speaker 2: Its models, again like OpenAI, are totally unprofitable. They're unsustainable
Speaker 2: and heavily dependent on training data that has either run
Speaker 2: out or is running out. Anthropic CEO Dario ami Day
Speaker 2: is also a sleazy con man who, like Sam Mortmon,
Speaker 2: continually promises that his company's AI systems will become powerful
Speaker 2: and autonomous in a way that they've never shown they
Speaker 2: have any possibility of becoming. He loves talking about AGI.
Speaker 2: He's just like Sam Mortmon, He's just as big a conman.
Speaker 2: Fuck Dario ama Day. Any investor in Anthropic needs to
Speaker 2: seriously consider what it is they're investing in. Anthropic has,
Speaker 2: other than iterating on its large language model, claud shown
Speaker 2: little fundamental differentiation from the rest of the industry. Anthropics business, again,
Speaker 2: like OpenAI, is entirely propped up by venture capital and
Speaker 2: hyperscalar dollars Google and Amazon in this case, and without
Speaker 2: them it would absolutely die almost immediately because they have
Speaker 2: only ever lost money. Anthropics products are both unpopular and commoditized,
Speaker 2: and they lost five point six billion dollars last year.
Speaker 2: Stop dancing around this fact, stop it. Stop doing this.
Speaker 2: We need to stop. If you remember of the media
Speaker 2: writing about this, listening to this, I need you to
Speaker 2: fucking stop. We by not reporting this every article, it's
Speaker 2: journalistic malpractice. These companies will die. How can you not
Speaker 2: see this? Let's talk about perplexity, and my general view
Speaker 2: on perplexity is who gives a shit? Who cares perplexity?
Speaker 2: A company valued at nine billion dollars towards the end
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty four has eight million people a month
Speaker 2: using its app, but the Financial Times reporting that they
Speaker 2: have a grand total of fifteen million monthly active users
Speaker 2: for an unprofitable search engine. Perplexity, like every Generativai company,
Speaker 2: only ever loses money, and its product, Generaivai powered search
Speaker 2: is so commoditized that it's actually remarkable that they still exist.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're bigger than Anthropic. That's crazy. Other than
Speaker 2: the slick design, there's little to be excited about here,
Speaker 2: and eight million monthly active users is pathetic. It's embarrassing,
Speaker 2: deeply embarrassing for a company with the majority of its
Speaker 2: users on mobile aravins. Rivinus is a desperate man with
Speaker 2: questionable intent that made a half hearted attempt to merge
Speaker 2: with TikTok in January. Really funny bother, It's like, hey,
Speaker 2: I have a really shitty company that loses a bunch
Speaker 2: of money. Can I merge with your beloved app for
Speaker 2: some reason? Like you need to do this. Also, their
Speaker 2: product rips off journalists. By the way, they had a
Speaker 2: whole thing for so they were just ripping fucking content.
Speaker 2: Did it with Business Insider two. It's disgusting, But any
Speaker 2: investor in Perplexity needs to ask themselves, what is it
Speaker 2: I'm investing in an unprofitable search engine, an unprofitable large
Speaker 2: language model company, A company that has such poor adoption
Speaker 2: of its product that was prepared to become the shell
Speaker 2: corporation for TikTok. Hmmm, Personally, I'd be concerned about the
Speaker 2: bullshit numbers they keep making up. The information reported to
Speaker 2: Perplexity said they'd make one hundred and twenty seven million
Speaker 2: dollars in twenty twenty five and six hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: six million dollars in twenty twenty six. How much money
Speaker 2: did it make in twenty twenty four just over fifty
Speaker 2: six million dollars. Is it profitable?
Speaker 1: Fuck?
Speaker 2: No, Perplexiti's product is commoditized, and they make less than
Speaker 2: a quarter of the revenue of the baseball team in
Speaker 2: the Oakland Athletics in twenty twenty four at least, though
Speaker 2: I should add the Perplexity's app is marginally more popular.
Speaker 2: It really is time to stop humoring these companies, though.
Speaker 2: It's time to stop writing about them like their gifted children.
Speaker 2: They are horrible. They are abominations of startups. They are
Speaker 2: abominations of capitalism, which is already fairly abominable. I'm really
Speaker 2: just disgusted reading these numbers. Jokeified me one hundred times.
Speaker 2: I didn't even need to put on the joker makeup.
Speaker 2: It just appeared on my skin naturally. I'm currently high
Speaker 2: kicking around this sound cube I record everything in. But
Speaker 2: really all of this is far more apocalyptic for the hyperscalers.
Speaker 2: The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft intends to spend
Speaker 2: ninety three point seven billion dollars in capital expenditures in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, or roughly eighty five hundred and eighteen
Speaker 2: dollars per monthly active user of the co Pilot app
Speaker 2: in January twenty twenty five. Google is planning to spend
Speaker 2: seventy five billion dollars on capital expenditures in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: or roughly foury one hundred and sixty seven per monthly
Speaker 2: active user of the Gemini app in January twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Sundhapashai wants Gemini to be used by five hundred million
Speaker 2: people before the end of twenty twenty five, and number
Speaker 2: five so unrealistic that someone at Google should be fired,
Speaker 2: and that someone is sunned up as shy. The fact
Speaker 2: of the matter is that if Google and Microsoft can't
Speaker 2: make generative AI apps work, if they can't get meaningful
Speaker 2: consumer penetration. This entire industry is screwed. There really are
Speaker 2: no optimistic ways to look at these numbers, and yes
Speaker 2: I'm repeating myself. Microsoft Copilot had eleven million monthly active
Speaker 2: users on the Copilot app and fifteen point six million
Speaker 2: unique monthly visitors the coopilot dot Microsoft dot com. Google
Speaker 2: Gemini had eighty million monthly active users on the Gemini
Speaker 2: app and forty seven point three million unique monthly users
Speaker 2: visitors even to their website. These are utterly pathetic considering
Speaker 2: Microsoft and Google scale, especially given the latters complete dominance
Speaker 2: over Google Search and web search in general, and the
Speaker 2: ability to funnel customers to Gemini for millions, perhaps billions,
Speaker 2: Google is the first page that they see when they
Speaker 2: open a web browser. Google should be owning this by now. Look,
Speaker 2: forty seven point three million unique monthly visitors is a
Speaker 2: lot of people, But considering that Google spent five fifty
Speaker 2: two zero point five four billion dollars in capital expenditures
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, it's hard to see whether return
Speaker 2: is or even whether a tone could be. Google, like
Speaker 2: most companies, does not break out revenue from AI. Just
Speaker 2: to be clear, if they were doing well, they would,
Speaker 2: though they do love to say stuff like a strong
Speaker 2: quarter was driven by our leadership in AI and momentum
Speaker 2: across the business, which means nothing. By the way that
Speaker 2: shit is made for journalisticy and go oh, that means
Speaker 2: they're making money in AI. When a company's making money
Speaker 2: in something, they'll tell you directly. And as a result
Speaker 2: of its unwillingness to share hard numbers, all we have
Speaker 2: to look at are numbers like those that received from
Speaker 2: similar webons Centre Tower, and it's fair to suggest that
Speaker 2: Gemini and its associated products have been a complete flop.
Speaker 2: We're still Google spent one hundred and twenty seven point
Speaker 2: five four billion dollars in capital expenditures in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three and twenty twenty four, combined with an estimated seventy
Speaker 2: five billion like I said for twenty twenty five, what
Speaker 2: the fuck is going on? Yes, Google is likely making
Speaker 2: revenue from people running generally AIM and Google Cloud, and
Speaker 2: yes they're likely making money from forcing AI onto Google
Speaker 2: Workspace customers by raising the prices and saying you get
Speaker 2: this for quote free. But Google, like every single other
Speaker 2: general IVAI company, is losing money on every single general
Speaker 2: IVAI prompt, and based on these monthly active user numbers,
Speaker 2: nobody really cares about Gemini at all. Actually, I take
Speaker 2: that back. Some people care about Gemini. Not that many,
Speaker 2: but some. And it's far more fair to say that
Speaker 2: nobody cares about Microsoft Copilot, despite Microsoft shoving it in
Speaker 2: every corner of our lives. Eleven million monthly active users
Speaker 2: for its unprofitable, heavily commoditized large language model app is
Speaker 2: a joke, as are the fifteen point six million monthly
Speaker 2: active users for its web presents, probably because it does
Speaker 2: exactly the same shit that every other LMM does, and
Speaker 2: if one knows it's powered by chet GPT, it's just
Speaker 2: it's remarkable. Microsoft's copil app isn't just unpopular, it's irrelevant.
Speaker 2: For comparison, Microsoft Teams has, according to a post for
Speaker 2: Microsoft from the end of twenty twenty three, over three
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty million months active users. That's more than
Speaker 2: ten times the amount of monthly active users of the
Speaker 2: Copilot app in January twenty twenty five, and the Copilot
Speaker 2: website combined, and unlike Copilot teams, makes Microsoft money now.
Speaker 2: I obviously don't have the numbers on people that accidentally
Speaker 2: click the Copilot button in Microsoft Office or bing dot com.
Speaker 2: But I do know that Microsoft isn't making much money
Speaker 2: on AI at all. Microsoft reported in its last earnings
Speaker 2: that it was making thirteen billion dollars of annual revenue,
Speaker 2: a projected number based on current contracts versus booked money.
Speaker 2: And this was on their artificial intelligence products. Now I've
Speaker 2: made this point again and again and again, and I'm
Speaker 2: going to keep making it. But revenue is not the
Speaker 2: same thing as profit, and Microsoft does not have an
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence part of its earnings breakdowns. These numbers are
Speaker 2: cherry picked from across the entire suite of Microsoft products,
Speaker 2: such as selling Copilot add ons to their Microsoft three
Speaker 2: sixty five enter price suite. And by the way, The
Speaker 2: Information reported in September twenty twenty four that Microsoft had
Speaker 2: only sold Copilot to around one percent of their customers
Speaker 2: buying three sixty five. They also make it selling access
Speaker 2: to open AIS models on this roughly a billion dollars
Speaker 2: in revenue, and people running their own models, and the
Speaker 2: zore cloud, Microsoft's cloud compute platform for context. By the way,
Speaker 2: Microsoft made sixty nine point sixty three billion dollars in
Speaker 2: revenue in its last quarter, thirteen billion dollars of annual
Speaker 2: revenue not profit, is about three point twenty five billion
Speaker 2: dollars in quarterly revenue off of upwards of two hundred
Speaker 2: billion dollars of capital expenditure since twenty twenty three. The
Speaker 2: fact that neither Gemini nor Copilot has any meaningful consumer
Speaker 2: penetration isn't just a joke. It should be sending alarm
Speaker 2: bells through Wall Street. While Microsoft and Google may make
Speaker 2: money outside of consumer software, both companies have desperately tried
Speaker 2: to cram Copilot and Gemini down consumer's throats, and they
Speaker 2: have categorically unquestionably failed or while burning billions of dollars
Speaker 2: to do so. But ed ed, what about get hubcopilot?
Speaker 2: All right, let's talk about git hub coopilot, shall we.
Speaker 2: According to a report from The Wall Street Journal from
Speaker 2: October twenty twenty three, Microsoft was losing an average of
Speaker 2: more than twenty dollars a month per user on the
Speaker 2: paid of gitthub copilot, what with some users costing them
Speaker 2: more than eighty dollars a month. Jesus christ. Microsoft said
Speaker 2: a year later that gethub copilot had one point eight
Speaker 2: million paid subscribers, which is pretty good, except like all
Speaker 2: generativio products, it loses money. Like I just bloody said,
Speaker 2: I must repeat that Microsoft will have spent over two
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars in capital expenditures by the end of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. In return, Microsoft got one point eight
Speaker 2: million paying customers for a product that, like everything else
Speaker 2: I'm talking about, is heavily commoditized. Basically, every LM can
Speaker 2: generate code that some are better than others, by which
Speaker 2: I mean they all introduced security issues into your code.
Speaker 2: But nevertheless, and somehow, Microsoft loses money even when the
Speaker 2: users use it paid. Am I getting through to you yet?
Speaker 2: Is this working? If you are working for a hedge
Speaker 2: fund and investment bank or anyone like that, please get
Speaker 2: in touch. I will protect your identity. Is anyone around
Speaker 2: you freaking out because they should be? They should be. Man,
Speaker 2: I'm freaking out a little, and I just keep all
Speaker 2: my money in a big box under my bed. I don't
Speaker 2: have that I do anyway, not going to do that. Jug. So,
Speaker 2: one of the arguments people make is that AI is everywhere,
Speaker 2: But it's important to remember that the prevalence of AI
Speaker 2: you seeing it in different apps, is not proof of
Speaker 2: its adoption, but the intent of companies to shove it
Speaker 2: into everything, And the same goes for businesses integrating AI
Speaker 2: that are really just mandating people dick around with Copilot
Speaker 2: or chat GPT and I'm really not kidding, no really.
Speaker 2: KPMG bought forty seven thousand Microsoft Copilot subscriptions last year,
Speaker 2: a significant discount to be familiar with any AI questions
Speaker 2: their customers may have. Management consultancy PwC bought one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand enterprise subscriptions, becoming open AI's largest customer in the process,
Speaker 2: as well as their first reseller, and have created their
Speaker 2: own internal generative AI called Chach PwC. The PWSC stuff
Speaker 2: as absolutely hate. It's really cool that when you actually
Speaker 2: talk to the users, they just fucking hate it. And
Speaker 2: while you may see AI everywhere, integrations of generative AI
Speaker 2: are indicative more of the decision making of the management
Speaker 2: behind the platforms and the demands of the market more
Speaker 2: than any consumer demand. Enterprise software is more often than
Speaker 2: not sold in bolt to managers or c suite executive tasks,
Speaker 2: less with company operations and messy things like doing staff
Speaker 2: for making sure the company runs, more with seeming on
Speaker 2: the forefront of technology. In practical terms, this means that
Speaker 2: there is a lot of demand to put AI in stuff,
Speaker 2: and some demand to buy stuff with AI on it
Speaker 2: by enterprise buying software, but little evidence that this actually
Speaker 2: leads the significant user adoption or usage. I'd argue this
Speaker 2: is because large language models do not really lend themselves
Speaker 2: to features that would provide meaningful business returns. And I
Speaker 2: think everyone can agree on that, Like there are things
Speaker 2: like summarizing emails, which I'll get to get to that
Speaker 2: in a second. Look. In fact, let's do it now.
Speaker 2: Let's briefly talk about where large language models work, where
Speaker 2: they are actually good. And some of you are not
Speaker 2: going to love this, but I know there's one of
Speaker 2: you is that yes, yes, now I will get ahead.
Speaker 2: I've got him now, I have him in my sights,
Speaker 2: to be clear, And this is really dealing with the
Speaker 2: am actually responses. I'm not saying and really have never
Speaker 2: meant to say that large language models have no use
Speaker 2: cases or no customers. People really do use them. They
Speaker 2: use them for coding, for searching defined libraries of documents,
Speaker 2: for generating draft materials, for brainstorming, for summarizing and searching documents,
Speaker 2: These are useful, but they're not magical. They're cool, but
Speaker 2: that's about it, and their coolness or usefulness is a
Speaker 2: tiny little ant compared to the costs and stealing from
Speaker 2: millions of people and damaging our power grid in our planet. Okay, okay,
Speaker 2: so you're probably wondering. I brought it up earlier. Agents.
Speaker 2: You've heard about agents. Mark Benioff wankin Off about agents.
Speaker 2: Sam Allman talking about agents. They loved, They loved talking
Speaker 2: about agents, right, they love saying agents of the future.
Speaker 2: When a company uses the term agent, they're intentionally trying
Speaker 2: to be deceitful, because the term agent means autonomous AI
Speaker 2: that does stuff without you touching. It goes off and
Speaker 2: does things for you with one command, and it knows
Speaker 2: what to do. Remember, these models don't know anything. The
Speaker 2: problem this definition is that everybody has used it to
Speaker 2: refer to what is actually a chatbot that can do
Speaker 2: some things while connected to a database, which I would
Speaker 2: regularly called a chatbot personally. In open AI and anthropics case,
Speaker 2: agents refer to a model that controls the computer. This
Speaker 2: is closer to the truth other than the fact that
Speaker 2: their agents are so unreliable as to be disqualifying, and
Speaker 2: the tasks they succeed at, like searching trip advisor, are
Speaker 2: very simple and did not need automating. Next time you
Speaker 2: hear the agent actually look at what the product does,
Speaker 2: and maybe you flick a booger at the person. But Ed, Ed,
Speaker 2: you just burst into my door and having a nice
Speaker 2: diet coke and you're in my house. What are you
Speaker 2: doing here?
Speaker 1: Ed?
Speaker 2: What about artificial general intelligence? Aren't they going to turn
Speaker 2: this into artificial general intelligence? No, they're not. Get out
Speaker 2: of my house. Generative AI is probabilistic and large language
Speaker 2: models do not know anything because they are guessing what
Speaker 2: the next part of a particular output would be based
Speaker 2: on the imput in reasoning models. They might look at
Speaker 2: that a few times go oh, maybe it's not this,
Speaker 2: maybe it's this. They are not making decisions. Generative AI
Speaker 2: does not make decisions. They are probability machines, which in
Speaker 2: turn makes them own only as reliable as probability can
Speaker 2: be and as conscious no matter how intricate the system
Speaker 2: may be or how much infrastructure is built. As a
Speaker 2: pair of dice, we do not understand how human intelligence works,
Speaker 2: and as a result, it's completely laughable to imagine we'd
Speaker 2: be able to simulate it. Large language models do not
Speaker 2: create or resemble, or they're not artificial intelligence. They are
Speaker 2: at most the most powerful parrot in the world, trained
Speaker 2: to respond to stimulus with what they guess is the
Speaker 2: correct answer, and they're pretty good at it. They're pretty good. Right,
Speaker 2: It's pretty cool, except we shouldn't be burning hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars to make them slightly better at this.
Speaker 2: Let me put it in simpler terms. Imagine if you
Speaker 2: made a machine that threw a bouncy ball down a
Speaker 2: hallway and it was really really you got really good
Speaker 2: at dialing in to throw the ball so that it
Speaker 2: followed a fairly exact trajectory. Would you think the arm
Speaker 2: was intelligent? Would you think the ball was intelligent? Would
Speaker 2: you think that the ability to precisely do something or
Speaker 2: more reliably do something would make it smart. The point
Speaker 2: I'm making about large language models is that they're a
Speaker 2: cool concept with some interesting things they can do. But
Speaker 2: they've been used as a cynical marketing vehicle to raise
Speaker 2: money for open AI by lying about what they're capable
Speaker 2: of doing, starting with calling them artificial intelligence. All right, really, though,
Speaker 2: at this point, I need to ask a very fucking
Speaker 2: simple question. Where is the goddamn money? Where is the
Speaker 2: goddamn money? Where's the money? Sammy, Sammy, give me the money.
Speaker 2: Where's the money? Money me money now? Sam Mortman, where
Speaker 2: is the money? Dario Ama Day, where's the money? Satya Nadella,
Speaker 2: where's the money? Summed up Ashai? Where's the money? Mark Benioff,
Speaker 2: where's the money? Where is the goddamn money? Because revenue
Speaker 2: is not the same as profit, I will say it again,
Speaker 2: revenue is not the same as profit. And even then, Google, Amazon,
Speaker 2: and to an extent, Microsoft, the company's making the most
Speaker 2: investments in AI, do not want to state what the
Speaker 2: revenue is on AI. I hypothesize the reason that they
Speaker 2: do not want to disclose it is that it's pretty
Speaker 2: goddamn small. It is extremely worrying that so few companies
Speaker 2: are willing to directly disclose their revenue from selling services
Speaker 2: that are allegedly revolutionary. Why Salesforce says they close two
Speaker 2: hundred AI related deals in their last earnings. How much
Speaker 2: money did they make? Why does Google get away with
Speaker 2: saying that they have growing demand for AI and nothing else?
Speaker 2: Is it? Because nobody's making that much money. As a sidebar,
Speaker 2: I can find and I've really really looked like one
Speaker 2: company that appears to be making profit from genera ivai
Speaker 2: during a consultancy that helps generaivai companies find people to
Speaker 2: train their models. That made three hundred million dollars in
Speaker 2: revenue in twenty twenty four and reach an indeterminate amount
Speaker 2: of profitability. We don't know if it was like a
Speaker 2: million dollars or not, while Microsoft may disclose it made
Speaker 2: thirteen million dollars in AI revenue that's annualized, so projected
Speaker 2: based on current contracts rather than actual money in accounts,
Speaker 2: and does not speak to the specific line items like
Speaker 2: one would say. If said line items, we're not going
Speaker 2: to make. The market say, hey, what the fuck? Put
Speaker 2: aside whatever fantastical beliefs you may have about the future,
Speaker 2: and tell me right now what business use case exists
Speaker 2: that justifies burning hundreds of billions of dollars, damaging our
Speaker 2: power grid, hurting our planet, and stealing from millions of
Speaker 2: people to train these models. Even if you can put
Speaker 2: troublesome things like morals or the basic principles of finance aside,
Speaker 2: can AI evangelists not see that their dream is failing.
Speaker 2: Can they not see that nothing is really happening, That
Speaker 2: general ivai at best can be kind of cool, yet
Speaker 2: mostly sucks and comes at this unbearable moral, financial, and
Speaker 2: environmental cost. Is any of this really worth it? And
Speaker 2: where exactly does this end? Do you AI evangelist gone
Speaker 2: to your head, your life contingent on the truth, leaving
Speaker 2: your lips believe that this goes much further than you
Speaker 2: see today? Do not know if these AI people see
Speaker 2: that this kind of sucks? Do they not see that
Speaker 2: general ifai runs contrary to the basic tenets of what
Speaker 2: makes science fiction call It doesn't make humans better. It
Speaker 2: reduces their work to a stagnant, unremarkable slop in every
Speaker 2: way it can, and reduces the cognition of those who
Speaker 2: come to rely on it, And it costs hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars and a return to fossil fuels. For
Speaker 2: some fucking reason, it isn't working. The users aren't there,
Speaker 2: the revenue isn't there. The best time to stop this
Speaker 2: was two years ago, and the next best time to
Speaker 2: stop is as soon as humanly possible. Generatifai is a
Speaker 2: group delusion, its own kind of real life hallucination. What
Speaker 2: you're seeing in the news is not the success of
Speaker 2: the artificial intelligence industry, but a runaway narrative created by
Speaker 2: and sustained by Sam Altman, Open Ai, Dario Amadee, and
Speaker 2: of course satch In Nedella these fucking people. What you're
Speaker 2: watching is not a revolution but a repetitious public relations
Speaker 2: campaign for one company that accidentally time the launch of
Speaker 2: chat GBT with a period of deep desperation in big tech,
Speaker 2: one so profound that it will likely drag half a
Speaker 2: trillion dollars worth of capital expenditures along with it. The
Speaker 2: bubble will only burst when either the markets or the
Speaker 2: hyperscalers accept that they've chased their own tales toward oblivion.
Speaker 2: There is no justification for any of the capital expenditures
Speaker 2: related to generative AI. We are approaching the limit of
Speaker 2: what transformer based architecture can do, if we haven't already
Speaker 2: reached it. No amount of beating off about test time, compute,
Speaker 2: and connecting large language models to other large language models
Speaker 2: is going to create a new use case for this technology,
Speaker 2: and even if it did, it's unlikely that it ever
Speaker 2: makes enough money to make it profitable. I will keep
Speaker 2: talking about this stuff until I'm proven wrong. I do
Speaker 2: not know why more people aren't more worried about this.
Speaker 2: The financials are truly damning. The user numbers are so
Speaker 2: small as to be insignificant. The costs are so ruinous
Speaker 2: that they will likely cost tens of thousands of people
Speaker 2: their jobs, and one of the hyperscalar CEOs their job
Speaker 2: along with it, although admittedly I'm a lot less upset
Speaker 2: about that. And they're going to inflict damage on tech
Speaker 2: valuations that may well rival the dot com boom or worse.
Speaker 2: And if the last point feels distant to you, ask yourself,
Speaker 2: what's in your retirement savings? That's right, Google, Microsoft, and
Speaker 2: hundreds of other companies that will be hurt by the
Speaker 2: contagion of an aiding. I should also not be the
Speaker 2: person saying this, or at least I shouldn't be one
Speaker 2: of the first. These numbers are horrifying, and I have
Speaker 2: no idea why nobody else is worried. There's no industry here,
Speaker 2: there is no money. There's no proof that this will
Speaker 2: ever turn into a real industry, and far more proof
Speaker 2: that it will cost more money than it will ever make.
Speaker 2: Im perpetuity open AI and anthropic are not real companies.
Speaker 2: They're freeloaders living on venture backed welfare for an indeterminate
Speaker 2: amount of time. Because the entire tech industry has agreed
Speaker 2: to rally around the world's most unprofitable software, and, like
Speaker 2: any other free ride that doesn't actually produce anything, when
Speaker 2: the money goes away, they're fucked. Seriously, why are investors
Speaker 2: funding open Ai? Do they seriously believe it's necessary to
Speaker 2: let Sam Altman and open Ai continue to burn five
Speaker 2: or more billion dollars a year on the off chance
Speaker 2: he's able to create something that's alive. This motherfucker can't
Speaker 2: create something that's profitable. What's the end point here? How
Speaker 2: many more billions? Where's the fucking money? Sammy? Where is it?
Speaker 2: Sam Moorman? Where's my god damn money? Where's my money? Sam?
Speaker 2: I say all this because generativeai is open Ai. The
Speaker 2: consumer adoption of this software is completely failed, and it's
Speaker 2: going nowhere fast Chat GPT is sustained entirely on deranged,
Speaker 2: specious hype drummed up by a media industry that thinks
Speaker 2: it's more remarkable to write down the last lie that
Speaker 2: Sam Moltman told than say that open ai has lost
Speaker 2: nine billion dollars in the last year to Sorry, they
Speaker 2: spent nine billion dollars to lose five billion dollars in
Speaker 2: last year, and they intend to more than double that
Speaker 2: number in twenty twenty five for absolutely no reason. Look, look,
Speaker 2: it's time to stop humoring open ai and time to
Speaker 2: stop directly stating that it is a bad business without
Speaker 2: a meaningful product. We also really need to be clear
Speaker 2: that the generative AI industry does not really exist without
Speaker 2: open Ai, and thus this company must justify its existence.
Speaker 2: And let's be abundantly clear, open Ai cannot exist any
Speaker 2: further without further venture capital investment. This company has absolutely
Speaker 2: no path to sustain in itself, no mode, and loses
Speaker 2: so much money that it will need more than fifty
Speaker 2: billion dollars to continue in its current form in the
Speaker 2: next year. I don't know how I'm wrong, and I've
Speaker 2: sat and thought through and researched a great deal on
Speaker 2: how I might be. I can't find any compelling arguments.
Speaker 2: I don't know what to do, but tell you what
Speaker 2: I think and why I think that way, and hope
Speaker 2: that you the listener understand a little bit more about
Speaker 2: what I think is going on, because this really bothers me.
Speaker 2: As I've said before, I grew up on the compute.
Speaker 2: The computer made me who I am. Seeing the tech
Speaker 2: industry like this sickens me because it's getting money away
Speaker 2: from people doing cool shit to the least cool people
Speaker 2: doing the least coolshit possible, and it's frustrating. But I'll
Speaker 2: leave you with one thought and one thing that particularly
Speaker 2: bothers me about GENERATIVAI. Regular people, for the most part
Speaker 2: of my experience, do not seem to want this. While
Speaker 2: there are occasionally people I'll mate you use chat GPT
Speaker 2: to rewrite part of an email, most of the people
Speaker 2: I may feel like AI was forced upon them. With
Speaker 2: that in mind, I believe that Apple is actually radicalizing
Speaker 2: millions of people against GENERATIVEAI by forcing them to reckon
Speaker 2: with the terrible summaries, awful suggested texts, and horribly designed
Speaker 2: user interface choices from Apple Intelligence, one of the worst
Speaker 2: product launches I think I've seen in my life. Something
Speaker 2: about generative AI has caused the hyperscalers to truly lose
Speaker 2: their minds, and the intrusion of GENERATIVAI into both Microsoft
Speaker 2: Office and Google Docs has turned just about everybody I
Speaker 2: know in the business world against them. The resentment boiling
Speaker 2: against this software is profound because the tech industry has
Speaker 2: become desperate and violative, showing such contempt for their customers
Speaker 2: that even Apple will force an inferior experience upon their
Speaker 2: customers to please the will of the rot economy and
Speaker 2: the growth at all cost mindset of the markets. Let's
Speaker 2: be frank, nobody really needs anything generative AI does. Large
Speaker 2: language models hallucinate too much to be truly reliable, a
Speaker 2: problem that will require entirely new branches of mathematics to solve,
Speaker 2: and their most common consumer facing functions like summarizing an article,
Speaker 2: practicing for a job interview, or writing a business plan
Speaker 2: are not really things people need or massively benefit from.
Speaker 2: Even if these things weren't ruinously expensive damaging to the environment.
Speaker 2: I believe general if AI is turning regular people against
Speaker 2: the tech industry thanks to how much they're trying to
Speaker 2: force it upon them and make them use the bad idea,
Speaker 2: and it isn't working. Nobody wants this ship. They're intrigued
Speaker 2: by the idea, then immediately bounce off of it in
Speaker 2: many cases once they see what it can or can't do.
Speaker 2: This software is being forced on people at scale by
Speaker 2: corporations desperate to seem futuristic without any real understanding as
Speaker 2: to why they need to do so, and whatever use
Speaker 2: cases may exist for large language models are dwarfed by
Speaker 2: how utterly unprofitable this whole fucking fiasco is. But I
Speaker 2: want you to do something. If this whole thing has
Speaker 2: pissed you off, if hearing about these companies has enraged
Speaker 2: you as it has enraged me. I want you to
Speaker 2: tell your friends, your family that open Ai spent nine
Speaker 2: billion dollars to lose five billion dollars. I want you
Speaker 2: to talk about the fact that large language models don't
Speaker 2: really have a market. That chat GPT is a marketing
Speaker 2: con That Sachinidella of Microsoft has burned probably will burn too,
Speaker 2: un billion dollars chasing software that does the same thing
Speaker 2: as everyone else. That Tim Cook of Apple has forced
Speaker 2: Apple Intelligence barely functional software on millions and millions of
Speaker 2: people because Apple has no more ideas. That Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: of Meta has pushed AI on everything because he has
Speaker 2: no more ideas left, and it's going to burn so
Speaker 2: much money in Meta and Sam Altman and Daria Amaday
Speaker 2: are two fucking liars, two liars who will tell you
Speaker 2: that their software will turn into artificial general intelligence. They're lying.
Speaker 2: They're all lying. And Sundharpeshai of Google is the arc
Speaker 2: liar who went in Google io and talked about a
Speaker 2: completely fictional AI agent returning some shoes. The only reason
Speaker 2: that companies like this lie like this is because the
Speaker 2: truth is boring. The truth is mediocre. Believe your goddamn
Speaker 2: eyes when you use chat GPT and you say, what
Speaker 2: the fuck is this? Why does this matter? You're not crazy,
Speaker 2: You're not an idiot because you can't see the magic
Speaker 2: of generative AI. The people pushing this stuff are rather credulous.
Speaker 2: They're either bought or they're making a shit ton of
Speaker 2: money and lying to you. I refuse to let them
Speaker 2: keep doing so. Better off Lene exists to kind of
Speaker 2: explain this stuff as plainly as possible. You can reach
Speaker 2: out to me if I wasn't clear about something. I
Speaker 2: love feedback. Please be nice to me. I guess is
Speaker 2: what I ask. But I love doing this. I am
Speaker 2: scared of how this ends. I think it's going to
Speaker 2: really hurt the markets. Could be three months, could be
Speaker 2: six months, could be eighteen months. I don't know, and
Speaker 2: I don't really think it's the right thing to do
Speaker 2: to predict, but I'll tell you this, a better tech
Speaker 2: industry can come out of this collapse. I don't know
Speaker 2: how severe the collapse is. I don't think like Google's
Speaker 2: going to die ornything. It's going to hit tens of
Speaker 2: thousands of people's jobs, It's going to hit the markets hard.
Speaker 2: I don't know if a recession is possible. I'm not
Speaker 2: a financial guy, but I'll tell you this, the tech
Speaker 2: industry needs. They need to realize how bad this is.
Speaker 2: They need consumers to tell them, and honestly, consumers not
Speaker 2: using it should have told them. But they clearly haven't
Speaker 2: worked that shit out, have they. But I'll leave you
Speaker 2: with this. I think when this there's going to be
Speaker 2: a lot of people that need to apologize. A lot
Speaker 2: of people in the media, the Casey Newtons of the world,
Speaker 2: the Caros Wishes of the world, the people claim in
Speaker 2: this the early days of the internet again boo. I
Speaker 2: think the thing we really need to do is make
Speaker 2: our dispersure known to these tech companies. Find the feedback forms,
Speaker 2: go online and talk about them. Say their names. Say
Speaker 2: their names to the friends you have who are mad
Speaker 2: at this too, which should be a lot of them.
Speaker 2: Say their names again and again and again. You ask me,
Speaker 2: how can things change? These people only have their names.
Speaker 2: They have more money than any of us can mind,
Speaker 2: they have all of this power, and as a result,
Speaker 2: they actually only have their seo their names. How do
Speaker 2: you think propagar Ragavan feels, by the way, when you
Speaker 2: google his name and all you see is me, the
Speaker 2: smiling man. I believe that enough of us just talking
Speaker 2: shit on these people. And I don't mean being irate.
Speaker 2: I don't mean making stuff up. We're not them. We
Speaker 2: don't have to operate with lies. We can operate with truths,
Speaker 2: such as Microsoft is propping up AI a venture welfare client.
Speaker 2: All these people hate the poor so much, but they
Speaker 2: love welfare when it means maybe making money or maybe
Speaker 2: burning billions of dollars. So fuck their name's up. Talk
Speaker 2: shit about them, Talk them to your friends. I don't
Speaker 2: care if you mentioned better offline. Just tell people what
Speaker 2: they've done. Tell people that Generative AI loses money on
Speaker 2: every single fucking move. It's so sickening, it's so boring,
Speaker 2: and it's most decidedly not the future. You are not
Speaker 2: crazy if you don't think this is amazing. You're being
Speaker 2: lied to. What you're seeing is a marketing campaign. And
Speaker 2: I will continue to walk you through this stuff, and
Speaker 2: if I'm wrong somehow, I will correct myself every goddamn time,
Speaker 2: because I deeply care about giving you what I know
Speaker 2: and what I've seen, and the things I've reported in
Speaker 2: these two episodes scared the shit out of me, both
Speaker 2: for the markets and the fact that so many rich
Speaker 2: people are willing to be so goddamn stupid, and it
Speaker 2: made me really angry because it shows such contempt, contempt
Speaker 2: for the media and contempt for the user, and I
Speaker 2: will not bloody accept it. It's such a pleasure to
Speaker 2: do this show. I'm very lucky to do so. Thank
Speaker 2: you for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer
Speaker 2: of the Better Offline theme song is Mattersowski. You can
Speaker 2: check out more of his music and audio projects at
Speaker 2: Mattasowski dot com M A T T O S O
Speaker 2: W s KI dot com. You can email me at
Speaker 2: easy at Better offline dot com, or visit Better Offline
Speaker 2: dot com to find more podcast links and of course,
Speaker 2: my newsletter. I also really recommend you go to chat
Speaker 2: dot Where's youreed dot at to visit the discord, and
Speaker 2: go to our slash Better Offline to check out our reddit.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 1: more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
Speaker 1: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.