"HSBC predicts that OpenAI's ChatGPT consumer products will attract 3 billion regular users by 2030, up from 800 million last month, and equivalent to 44 percent of the world's population over 15 years old."

Really? They must be assuming it's going to be hard to fight off. A bit like a virus.

The sad thing is that the general public seems incapable of counting zeros - many still think "millions" is a lot.

Ignorance is only bliss up to a point . . .

You lose a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

> Another half a billion users would generate a $36 billion boost in revenue

So with 88% of the world population over 15 as subscribers, a 10% price hike, advertising, licensing and assuming their costs stay the same, OpenAI might just about break even.

By 2030.

> So with 88% of the world population over 15 as subscribers, a 10% price hike, advertising, licensing and assuming their costs stay the same, OpenAI might just about break even.

So assuming they could annihilate all competition and force every single human on the planet to pay for a CrapGPT subscription from cradle to grave, how long would it take them to pay their existing debt??

I really wonder wtf their investors and lenders are smoking

(And of course, their costs would NOT stay the same - they'd need a lot more chips and a lot more 'leccy for starters.. Unless the population just pay the subscription in spite of hours-late answers or 503 errors)

I really wonder wtf their investors and lenders are smoking

I thought that was a pretty good question. So I went over to https://chatgpt.org and asked "what are open AI investors smoking that causes them to think the operation can be profitable"

And I got back 40 lines of marketing drivel which I would reproduce here if I could copy it to the clipboard. Which I can't seem to. Perhaps Chat GPT prefers not to be quoted.

The marketing drivel did not address my question of what on Earth the investors are smoking. Whatever it is, it seems to be potent. And likely illegal.

The OECD is described as having 659.9 Million people of working age 15-64, employed and unemployed.

Do HSBC believe we're going to be volunteering a median of €6 quid a month to OpenAI, and they'll make money through us not actually making queries that cost OpenAI more than this + energy costs and datacentre costs decreasing greatly?

Maybe they think that commercial users will be paying for it on our behalf? What would that require, 180 per month for each adult in sales and advertising commission?

Why would HSBC think that the market for models won't be more fragmented, with the high value queries sent to LLMs that can statistically prove they provide consistently useful results when fed somewhat standardised input?

Chinese businesses will likely drive their own, and may be of more use due to localisation.

I'm sure that there will be gaming and leisure applications but again, the likes of Epic's Unreal Engine could provide trained models that run on NPU and their own service.

Honestly, I don't think they are thinking. They've got THE NEXT BIG THING by the tail and it's going to change the world and make they and their investors wealthy beyond imagining. They think they are Microsoft in 1990 rather than Segway in 2001 (remember them? They were going to change personal transportation forever). The gods of progress are on their side and nothing can possibly go wrong.

(And also, one suspects they are counting on us paying a good deal more than €6 /month for their invaluable service.)

You go ahead and sign deals to buy valuable real estate in Ney York, Paris and Dubai. Then go to your bank and explain that you only need $250 billion to pull it off.

See how well that goes (hint : it won't go well).

But because this is a oublicly traded company (that is continually losing money), somehow these deals generate enthusiasm on the stock market.

I thought those "golden boys" were supposed to be finance geniuses. To me, they're looking more and more like grifters who are just after feeding like vampires while something is going up and pulling out as soon as the deals start to sour, without taking any account of the total lack of backbone the company had to realize the deal in the first place.

Wall Street creates disasters, not money. In the best case scenario, when the economy is working, Wall Street is just leeching profits. It is most certainly not helping money flow.

OpenAI is not a publicly traded company though.

Just a small correction, OpenAI isn't a publicly traded company (yet). If it was, it would have to follow those annoying rules about accounting, transparency, risk, etc. Far better to be a tech darling, burning through other people's money on wild promises about making every job redundant.

"HSBC predicts that OpenAI's ChatGPT consumer products will attract 3 billion regular users by 2030, up from 800 million last month, and equivalent to 44 percent of the world's population over 15 years old."

I hope there is some good research to back up these rather bold claims?

I wonder how many of them regular "users" will be AI bots?

It continually amazes me that these huge start-ups can continue to obtain funding based on unrealistic market penetration and earnings projections 1 , and then to pass a measurable amount of this to the founders and other high-up execs as salary and/or bonuses without these people ever causing the company to make a dime (most of them are American) in profit.

Having taken a cushy lifestyle, with a high personal profile in the start-up years, they will, in all probability, just walk away before the financial realities hit home, leaving with personal money and reputation, while the people who follow them will take the blame for the companies financial woes when the chickens come home to roost.

With smaller venture start-ups, there is a catch net. If it produces something of value, there is a chance that there will be an even larger company prepared to by it, but the supposed value of these AI companies is just so huge there is no guarantee that there is anyone who could afford to do this!

1 The global penetration of these projections just beggers belief. If you believe the global inequity reports, over 50% of the worlds income goes to just 10% of the worlds population. This means that to achieve the figures, AI has to become an essential part of the lives of some of the poorest people on earth. Good luck on extracting significant revenue from them. They're more worried about whether they can put food on the table rather than paying a subscription service for something that AI can deliver!

By 2030 AI will have made everyone redundant so where are these 'consumer subscriptions' going to come from and who is going to pay for them?

AI Payee, a new product that pays for AI, will pay for everything.

People will be obsolete!

Seems like the same sort of circular argument I had with my mum 50 odd years ago about my need for a bike to cure my perenial lateness for,well, everything.

It didn't wash then, and it shouldn't now.

I think we need the solution she found

which was an alarm clock

Just ask the A.I. what's so special about the number 42

Oh and we need a priesthood for the A.I. with appropriate rituals etc

...... No, we have that already

Aha! now to wait for the US grid to implode, when they turn on all those data centers they are building.

I suppose it's the Venezuelan oil they plan to steal which will power the things.

TTFN