• Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I can’t see a scenario where a bailout doesn’t happen but I also don’t see it being beneficial if a bailout does occur.

    While the automakers bailout boosted an industry that was on major trouble, they were able to return to profitability in the end and pay back those loans right? The whole A.I. industry has never turned a profit, so even if we bail them out, the fundamental model as it is now would just revert to a known unprofitable state.

    You could argue that you should bail out the hardware companies so you don’t cripple the chip manufacturers, and foundries, but there is no financial benefit that I can see to bail out a llm developer. If you were going that route. I would say they have to nationalize the software companies but I don’t want that being part of the government at fucking all.

    • ButteryMonkey@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’d argue rather than bailing out hardware and chip makers for their completely blatant fraud, they should be nationalized, and llm companies should just be left to fail or fined into failure for their part in the fraud. It’s not like other unrelated groups aren’t working on their own models anyway.

    • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      Agreed, the bailout should be targeted and very selective. If OpenAI can’t survive, then fine, let it ‘die’. It won’t actually die, it’ll get scooped up by someone else and their assets will be picked up by one of the surviving companies. It’s an interesting way to innovate… burn money to push the industry further along, knowing full well that you’ll never turn a profit, but that a future company will end up with your tech and they might eventually make a profit.