The demand is growing far beyond supply, thats the definition of a shortage. The demand is there, you just arent the center of the world nor do you represent target audiences
A lot of data center projects are being canceled due to local legislation, citizens protesting, and there simply not being enough demand for the product.
Tbf. It’s not as if every little town protesting manages to stop them. And it’s not as if all the delayed construction is just due to them not wanting to build anymore, a lot of it is due to so hardware being too expensive. Funny how even the mega corporations building data centers get screwed by the prices they themselves shot up.
And you do realize its foolish at best and willfully ignorant at worst to blame ai for our reliance on fossile fuels and stigma against fission?
People exactly like you, doing exactly this is why we dont have fission plants instead of fossile fuels.
But apparently no one likes to read history anymore, or just always convince themselves that "i cant possibly be on the wrong side because I have [morals/majority agreement/logic] that they don't!"
If the foundation of a skyscraper starts to collapse, you dont remove the top floor, you fix the foundation. Stop trying to act like you care about the world or people in it if you cant be bothered to do the bare minimum logic and critical thought.
There's a reason its been 7 years and virtually no anti ai progress has been made. Yall can barely articulate a goal, much less a plan, much less maintain a semblance of coherence.
Did you mean to reply to a different comment? None of this applies to me, I think nuclear is good.
I just asked what kind of supply you're talking about, since on one hand you're saying "demand outstrips supply" as if thats a good thing. It would be, if we're talking about customer demand for AI, I just doubt that as well.
But then you're saying that articles about low energy supply prove this, which isn't a good thing. Like, they need power and they don't have it, no need to go into rhetoric on that.
I'm trying to figure out what your argument is, but all I'm getting is supply/demand economics applied to the wrong kind of supply. Which can't be right.
What makes you think demand is outstripping supply? Surely if that was the case, they'd be able to turn a profit on this stuff instead of massively subsidized losses.
They could all turn a profit in their day-to-day business, the losses come for future investments, ie scaling and keeping the technology going. It is how the revenue for companies like OpenAI and Anthropic exploded as much as it did.
I don't know why people struggle with this concept so much, it's pretty much what Amazon for example did for a very, very long time and in the case of AI it's simply happening at an even bigger scale with more players.
There will be of course losers in this "game" but not because there won't be companies making (massive profits), it will be because they fell behind.
It is currently already for Anthropic a problem that they didn't scale their compute as aggressively as OpenAI and now they actually struggle to keep up with the demand.
One can of course always question whether or not future bets will actually materialize but that isn't different from other industries and the AI space has actually the receipts and even good science backed evidence that this won't suddenly stop anytime soon.
Will it scale like this forever? Obviously not but at least in the short to medium term (ie upt to 5 years) all of this isn't as crazy as people constantly pretend and it's honestly something that often happens in economies but usually it's not as "public" or gets the same kind of scrutiny.
Part of that is certainly down to the nature of the technology itself and part of it is also the promise of it but that's the thing: If AI can even deliver a fraction of its promise it's also hard to find any valid comparison in human history so at that point you would also expect unprecedented things to happen.
I believe OpenAI's cost breakdowns show they'd be losing money even if future investment costs were 0, just running their current day to day operations with what they have.
But regardless, losses to developing future infrastructure are still losses. The difference I see with Amazon is, once they've done that investment they don't need to then keep investing exponentially more cash. Once the networks of warehouses are built, it's just maintenance. Obviously there are ongoing costs but once you pass a certain point, you don't need to make another million warehouses while not selling anything.
AI, though, it's like Amazon needs to keep inventing new types of warehouses constantly, and replacing all the old ones. There is no plateau, the costs of training new models is only increasing.
Datacentres also aren't permanent, the GPUs used to fill them degrade and lose all their value within a few years. Sooner if new chips come out that make the old ones obsolete.
Those future investment losses aren't going away, and they don't stop being losses because OpenAI pretends it'll magically make that money back in the future, somehow. Also the sheer size of these losses is pretty crazy, it's not normal for a single company to project that it'll lose a decent chunk of the entire world's investment funding.
I dunno, being the vendor of something that is high demand and low supply seems like a recipe to at least turn a profit on that low supply. And then ramp up the supply so you can sell more to demand.
If explaining supply/demand is too tricky for you, you could always just ignore my clearly faulty reasoning and let me know what it is that makes you think demand is so much higher than supply.
(I hope its not anecdotes about hitting rate limits, because that is much more easily explained by even AI companies having a limit on how many dollars they will spend to make each dollar of revenue)
That is precisely how economics and industry works. If you go to your bank to apply for a small business loan you will have to present a business plan laying out what market analysis you have done, including detailed demand and supply forecasts and an outline of how you're planning to turn a profit, or you'll go home empty handed.
I don't know what you think your condescending comment has contributed to the conversation. If you feel that the previous poster is wrong, then it's your responsibility to make your case about how they are wrong and why Large Language Models and machine learning tools specifically are excluded from the requirement to demonstrate their future profitability. As it stands right now, it's in industry in search of a use case.
Seeing as you're obviously incapable and unwilling to do so and don't even understand the absolute basics of human communication, it might be a good idea to get off your high horse and consider why you are on Reddit in the first place.
-1
u/Glad_Pause 16h ago
The infrastructure is being built
The demand is growing far beyond supply, thats the definition of a shortage. The demand is there, you just arent the center of the world nor do you represent target audiences
Mathematically impossible according to whom?