zlacker

>>jimmin+(OP)
> running it scares the crap out of me

A hundred times this. It's fine until it isn't. And jacking these Claws into shared conversation spaces is quite literally pushing the afterburners to max on simonw's lethal trifecta. A lot of people are going to get burned hard by this. Every blackhat is eyes-on this right now - we're literally giving a drunk robot the keys to everything.

>>popcor+lb
I understand that things can go wrong and there can be security issues, but I see at least two other issues:

1. what if, ChadGPT style, ads are added to the answers (like OpenAI said it'd do, hence the new "ChadGPT" name)?

2. what if the current prices really are unsustainable and the thing goes 10x?

Are we living some golden age where we can both query LLMs on the cheap and not get ad-infected answers?

I read several comments in different threads made by people saying: "I use AI because search results are too polluted and the Web is unusable"

And I now do the same:

"Gemini, compare me the HP Z640 and HP Z840 workstations, list the features in a table" / "Find me which Xeon CPU they support, list me the date and price of these CPU when they were new and typical price used now".

How long before I get twelve ads along with paid vendors recommendations?

>>Tactic+qf
> what if the current prices really are unsustainable and the thing goes 10x?

Where does this idea come from? We know how much it costs to run LLMs. It's not like we're waiting to find out. AI companies aren't losing money on API tokens. What could possibly happen to make prices go 10x when they're already running at a profit? Claude Max might be a different story, but AI is going to get cheaper to run. Not randomly 10x for the same models.

>>spider+kk
From what I've read, every major AI player is losing a (lot) of money on running LLMs, even just with inference. It's hard to say for sure because they don't publish the financials (or if they do, it tends to be obfuscated), but if the screws start being turned on investment dollars they not only have to increase the price of their current offerings (2x cost wouldn't shock me), but some of them also need a (massive) influx of capital to handle things like datacenter build obligations (10s of billions of dollars). So I don't think it's crazy to think that prices might go up quite a bit. We've already seen waves of it, like last summer when Cursor suddenly became a lot more expensive (or less functional, depending on your perspective)

>>overga+7p
This is my understanding as well. If GPT made money the companies that run them would be publicly traded?

Furthermore, companies which are publicly traded show that overall the products are not economical. Meta and MSFT are great examples of this, though they have recently seen opposite sides of investors appraising their results. Notably, OpenAI and MSFT are more closely linked than any other Mag7 companies with an AI startup.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2025/11/10/openai-spe...

>>hypera+pr
Going public is not a trivial thing for a company to do. You may want to bring in additional facts to support your thesis.

>>fragme+qv
Fwiw I’m not making a comment on companies which have transitioned from private to public or doing any sort of strategic analysis related to that. I’m merely saying if we index on publicly traded companies which have made substantial AI investments, the story isn’t super clear, i.e. as an investor there is not yet a solid positive thesis for the economics of LLM that would rate the tech as a buy. It doesn’t help that information is sparse here and that AI investments in general is clustered around a few megacap stocks with other interests outside of AI writ large