How @BaggerofTea is still on here and people dapping that agent is beyond me.
dude is a certified weirdo fraud. He really in here trying to gaslight people thinking everybody here is dumb.
dude is a certified weirdo fraud. He really in here trying to gaslight people thinking everybody here is dumb.The real danger is that no one has shown a way to make the money back. At least with smartphone tech you could sell them directly to consumers and can liquidate the used products to other markets or pivot the architectureto other uses. AI is a primarily commercial tool. For individual consumers its just making gimmicky videos and enhancing chat bots. No one has produced a profitability model that will recoup the investment. The once the chips are ran through they are practically useless as well so you dont have a resource liquidation model to decrease the initial cost of investment with a backend divestment strategy.
Yo it's funny how this is almost word for word the damn near EXACT same set of arguments that all the Wall Street analysts had about Bezos when he started building AWS. It took nearly 7-8 years before AWS started making real money for Amazon. Man back then all the Wall street guru analysts were saying he should stick to his retail website and that they couldn't see any path to how all this hundreds of millions in spending would ever produce a profit.If things are so good can you tell me what the model to profitability with these companies (outside Nvidia) to increase profitability in a way that doesnt complete wreck the American economy?
Because Sam Altman hasn't come up with one. Mark Zuckerbergs AI related ideas have all failed and Alex Karp brings up politics every time you ask him about his companies business fundamentals.
TLDR: "They'll figure it out" aint a plan or a strategy, breh. The American economy outside this spending frenzy isnt healthy. And if this doesnt work it'll tank the economy because Trillions have been spent on this and its responsible for most of the growth in the last 2 years.

I get the skepticism, but I think the '100k earner buying a 10M home' analogy misses how CapEx works in tech. You’re looking at the 'Infrastructure Phase.' In the late 90s, companies spent billions laying dark fiber that didn't pay off for a decade but eventually, that infrastructure made the modern internet possible.
OpenAI’s spend isn't consumer debt, it’s R&D and compute acquisition.
The revenue is lagging, but that is true of every major platform shift. If we judged Amazon by its profitability in 2002, it would have looked like a disaster. The bet isn't on chatbots, it’s on AI solving the cost of intelligence for coding, drug discovery, and logistics. It's risky, sure, but calling it 'useless' once the chips wear out ignores the IP and models built with that compute.
The $1.5T spend isn't a credit card bill due next month, it's a 10-year capital commitment to build data centers that will likely be the most valuable real estate on earth. If you judge a bridge’s profitability while it's still under construction, it always looks like a money pit.
Yo it's funny how this is almost word for word the damn near EXACT same set of arguments that all the Wall Street analysts had about Bezos when he started building AWS. It took nearly 7-8 years before AWS started making real money for Amazon. Man back then all the Wall street guru analysts were saying he should stick to his retail website and that they couldn't see any path to how all this hundreds of millions in spending would ever produce a profit.
Also acting like AI will only ever amount to deepfakes and chatbots shows a real lack of imagination. Anybody who's been using Chatgpt since the early days from version one to today sees the huge jump in capability. From shyts and giggles to using it everyday for work. It's really not hard to take that experience and then picture how much better AI will get in a few more years especially given it's just getting started.
So according to your logic, if consumer value has to exist on day one, how do you explain cloud’s early years when it looked exactly the same? There were no consumer apps. No resale value for those servers that become old. No obvious profitability model. Uber and Spotify did not show up at launch. Wasn't until almost ten years later. By your standard Bezos should have shut down AWS entirely in the beginning and we would all be stuck in a world without Netflix streaming or any of the modern services that rely on cloud. All because the profitability model didn't fit into some perfect little 5 year wall street excel model spreadsheet on day one.
You really think Bezos could've predicted Uber or Instagram or DoorDash back in 06? He couldn't. Because the infrastructure did not exist yet. It was being built. Same with AI. You do not get the killer apps until the foundation is stable and cheap. We are in that buildout phase. There are going to be new economic models created from all this shyt that we haven't even imagined yet.
On the highest levels, a trillion dollars isn’t even that much money anymore breh. In 10 years these’ll be joke numbers.The concern about the 1.5 Trillion even if its over 10 years thats 150 Billion dollars in spending per year. This is for a company that is barely making $15B in revenues.
Do you believe this company is going increase its revenue 1000% over the next 10 years? Do you think the company to increase its value at least 150B each year for the next 10? Because thats the minimum its going to need to make or increase in value just to cover its spend commitments. To be clear that 1.5 Trillion is literally 3 times the current value of the entire retail mobile phone market globally.
Have you heard Sam Altman say anything to anyone to anyone that give any sort of hit on how hes going to generate that kind of revenue?
TLDR: Your AWS example is incongruent with Open AI. The success examples you use didnt overcoming to this level and even when they did they had a clear path to profitability. Build it and they will come only works if you know how they will use once they show up.
----------‐------------------------
The AWS comparison is terrible for a couple of reasons:
1. Amazon was already a highly successful market leader company in a complete different market than AWS was targeting.
OpenAI doesnt have a successfully fall back industry to lean on if this isnt profitable. This isnt some corporation experimenting in a different sector this a company still proving itself in an emerging on.
2. AWS was attempting to be a disruptor in a proven market that already had stable publically traded market leaders (Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, etc.)
Open AI part of a market that has no definitions yet, is very unstable, and has no proven models.
I dont know if AI will amount to deep fakes and chat bots but thats what the market is using it for.
As a comparison when most of America got the internet they started using it to host or participate in multimedia platforms, digital commerce hubs, social gathering sites, video game hubs, etc.
These are things the market started using it for on its own. I use AI at work everyday. Its a slow personal secretary at best that helps me find things faster and generate content more quickly. Thats it. Right now AI is an enhanced version of Clippy for most of its commercial applications. For consumers its a creative tool. Thats it.
What is the model that is going to generate 1.5 Trillion dollars? They are spending money to build it but that dont know what they are going to use it for.
As for the cloud, it was being supported by IT companies that could literally afford to lose the entire business and could still have positive quarterly earnings.
Can Open AI say the same?
I used to work in a Datacenter. Those old servers often took 5 years to be old and 10 to be obsolete. We had Mainframes that were 10 years old with no expectation to replace them anytime soon. Even if you replaced them at 5 years. You could sell them to another company who would resell them to a different buyer in the global market. Can't do that with GPUs. And because of the way they use these GPUs they have a shorter shelf life.
Heres the other problem. If you have a fleet of Trucks and Ford believes they'll be inoperable in 3 years and you think they wont break for 6. Youre going to incur a massive unforseen spend when you have to replace them early, especially if you're red-lining them the entire time.
Last thing. This isnt like Uber or Doordash where youre competing against the other market players. Open AI is competing with the Chinese government. They have infinitely more capital than he can acquire, with a cheaper labor force, more market leverage and better connections.
You guys keep saying the market will find a way to use this but show me the last company that did business that wasn't already successful.
On the highest levels, a trillion dollars isn’t even that much money anymore breh. In 10 years these’ll be joke numbers.
Apple was worth $500 billion dollars ten years ago as the #1 company. Now companies are worth over $5 Trillion, which is nearly two trillion dollars more than Apple (the largest company) was worth last year.
shyt, we’ll have trillionaires soon. The U.S Debt is over $40 trillion.
You also have to be aware of margins. Exxon Mobil and large companies previously had a lot of CapEx and Operating expenses because they had to manage a whole lot of facilities.
Remember, software and software services can be installed into many things. They need much much more flexible than hardware.Youre right a Trillion isnt as much in capital as it used to be but when you have 1500 times your income in financial commitments its practically the sword of Damocles. Especially when you have no strategy to generate revenue.
Again youre comparing OpenAi to companies that spend more on failed projects every year than Open AI makes in revenue.
Apple made over 90M it net income last year. Open AI isnt even profitable yet.
Apple has multiple profitable tangible product streams.
OpenAI has zero
Apple despite having 6x times OpenAi's revenue in profit has never entered a new market thats wasn't already proven without already having been successful in another market.
Name another company that has been successful when it initial product has no clear path to profitability.
Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta etc. None of them made a bet that was 1500x their total revenue while they were
The conversation is starting to go all over the place breh. We started with this:The concern about the 1.5 Trillion even if its over 10 years thats 150 Billion dollars in spending per year. This is for a company that is barely making $15B in revenues.
Do you believe this company is going increase its revenue 1000% over the next 10 years? Do you think the company to increase its value at least 150B each year for the next 10? Because thats the minimum its going to need to make or increase in value just to cover its spend commitments. To be clear that 1.5 Trillion is literally 3 times the current value of the entire retail mobile phone market globally.
Have you heard Sam Altman say anything to anyone to anyone that give any sort of hit on how hes going to generate that kind of revenue?
TLDR: Your AWS example is incongruent with Open AI. The success examples you use didnt overcoming to this level and even when they did they had a clear path to profitability. Build it and they will come only works if you know how they will use once they show up.
----------‐------------------------
The AWS comparison is terrible for a couple of reasons:
1. Amazon was already a highly successful market leader company in a complete different market than AWS was targeting.
OpenAI doesnt have a successfully fall back industry to lean on if this isnt profitable. This isnt some corporation experimenting in a different sector this a company still proving itself in an emerging on.
2. AWS was attempting to be a disruptor in a proven market that already had stable publically traded market leaders (Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, etc.)
Open AI part of a market that has no definitions yet, is very unstable, and has no proven models.
I dont know if AI will amount to deep fakes and chat bots but thats what the market is using it for.
As a comparison when most of America got the internet they started using it to host or participate in multimedia platforms, digital commerce hubs, social gathering sites, video game hubs, etc.
These are things the market started using it for on its own. I use AI at work everyday. Its a slow personal secretary at best that helps me find things faster and generate content more quickly. Thats it. Right now AI is an enhanced version of Clippy for most of its commercial applications. For consumers its a creative tool. Thats it.
What is the model that is going to generate 1.5 Trillion dollars? They are spending money to build it but that dont know what they are going to use it for.
As for the cloud, it was being supported by IT companies that could literally afford to lose the entire business and could still have positive quarterly earnings.
Can Open AI say the same?
I used to work in a Datacenter. Those old servers often took 5 years to be old and 10 to be obsolete. We had Mainframes that were 10 years old with no expectation to replace them anytime soon. Even if you replaced them at 5 years. You could sell them to another company who would resell them to a different buyer in the global market. Can't do that with GPUs. And because of the way they use these GPUs they have a shorter shelf life.
Heres the other problem. If you have a fleet of Trucks and Ford believes they'll be inoperable in 3 years and you think they wont break for 6. Youre going to incur a massive unforseen spend when you have to replace them early, especially if you're red-lining them the entire time.
Last thing. This isnt like Uber or Doordash where youre competing against the other market players. Open AI is competing with the Chinese government. They have infinitely more capital than he can acquire, with a cheaper labor force, more market leverage and better connections.
You guys keep saying the market will find a way to use this but show me the last company that did business that wasn't already successful.
AI isnt the bubble, the way its being invested in is.
In your opinion, what is a sustainable profitability model that will produce a return on the level of investment we've seen?
![]()
Profitability and returns will come the same way it eventually came for cloud. AI is eventually gonna help a lot of businesses everywhere make money and cut costs.
What are you even talking about breh? Pick any modern tech you use todayYou guys keep saying the market will find a way to use this but show me the last company that did business that wasn't already successful.
Remember, software and software services can be installed into many things. They need much much more flexible than hardware.
Think about recommendation systems on Spotify for example. They can connect to an A.I to analyze someone’s preferences so they listen to more music. Think about sensor in an air conditioner system finding the optimal time to turn itself on for someone based on multiple parameters, think about software that can be put in cars, etc.
Think of all the software that accesses the internet for the user. Additionally, think of all the smaller models of A.I that can be installed on things locally.
A.I can basically be installed on everything today and these companies would subscribe to these companies or build their own (which maybe they don’t want to due to high expenses all to underperform a specific A.I another major A.I company has). It’s all connected and A.I is simply software, software is malleable, intangible and highly versatile with the ability to access things seemingly unrelated if the programmer wants it to.
Plus it’s contagious: someone or a company gets ahead of someone else because they used A.I. That’s going to eventually turn into multiple people using A.I.
The conversation is starting to go all over the place breh. We started with this:
and now you are zooming in specifically on OpenAI’s balance sheet? Why? I thought this was about the entire AI industry which you said is the only thing holding up the economy? This ain't about OpenAI the company. This is about the entire AI ecosystem. If your beef is specifically with OpenAI, that is fine. No one said OpenAI is guaranteed to win. The jury is absolutely still out on them. They are the top dog right now because they were the first to bring mass market genAI to the public, not because the entire AI industry depends on their survival. They honstely could fail or disappear tomorrow and NVIDIA, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Anthropic, all dem would keep building. So treating OpenAI’s business model as the entire fate of AI doesn't make any sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's cut out all the noise breh and bring it back to your main point. The question is simple:
Can the AI industry generate long term economic value or sustainable profitability model as you put it, that justifies all this billions infrastructure spend? Yes or no.
If your answer is no, then show me why things that already in use today like AI automation or code gen tools won't. Those are all billion dollar cost centers in any Fortune 500 today.
Look at IBM for example:
In the two years since, in addition to USD 4.5 billion in productivity gains, this helped to drive USD 12.7 billion in free cash flow in 2024, enabling investments in growth through talent, innovation and acquisitions.
Think about how much value software developers as a whole generate today. more than a trillion each year. if you give every single developer a Copilot or Cursor, as these tools get better and better, how much more software or features could those devs crank out? even if it was just 20% more that can easily represent billions of dollars a year in more revenue.
There are several companies otu there who've all reported saving millions to billions of dollars in operational costs thanks to AI. You can google all this shyt in 5 seconds.
I said this from jump but you seemed to gloss over it:

What are you even talking about breh? Pick any modern tech you use today
Tesla
Airbnb
Uber
Netflix
They were nobodies when they started.
They were not
- 'already successful':
- 'already profitable'
- 'already proven'
These were all tiny nobody companies until they weren't. They didn't have a 'fall back industry to lean on'. Blockbuster looked at Netflix as a joke. They were all unknown startups once upon a time building in markets that barely existed yet. If your rule is that only already successful companies can build new things then the entire modern Internet wouldn't even exist.
SIRI is nothing close to A.I/LLM’s breh.Apple put AI in their iPhone 15 - decline in market share
Apple put AI on the iPhone 16 - 12% worse sales than the iPhone 15
Strapping AI on the retail products does not automatically increase sales of retail products
Putting AI into cars doesnt increase sales volumes of vehicles because AI isnt the primary, secondary, or tertiary reason people buy cars.
AI isnt like the internet. It doesnt create a new sales channel unless the primary product is AI. Its a feature add on, not the underpinning of the system.
What is a retail b2c application for AI that creates a new revenue stream rather than enhancing one? AI right now is a cost center, but people are investing like its a profit center. It makes existing things more effective but it doesnt generate revenue above its cost directly (same as a help desk or IT team at a company) unless its the primary product (OpenAI, CoreWeave, etc.)
Does Spotify being better at guessing a user's preference directly contribute to more subscribers? Because subscribers care alot more about fidelity, available music, CX, the UI, and shareability alot more than they care about the platform guessing the music they like better than the existing algos do.
We can focus on my original question but no one has answered it. Whats the profitability model and key markets that will give a return on these trillions in investment?
You havent addressed this directly. Sam Altman hasn't addressed this directly. Why cant anyone including founders of these key AI companies address that question?
I manage product teams in EU and Latam. Do you know what happens when they give each coder some AI tools to help? They cut staff and off shore to lower quality devs that cost a 75% less to contract. You end up with shxxtier products with more bugs, and a cost savings that is only temporary because you lowered quality. Thats not a sustainable path for development, thats a race to the bottom to keep earnings high.
The tech market needs to generate 2 trillion dollars in revenue from AI in the next 5 years to justify the investment. Do you think it can do that and what AI products do you see generating that money and how?
You guys keep using false equivalents with a lower market cap but a more tangible profitability model.
- None of the companies you named were over leveraged like OpenAI is.
- Everyone of the companies you named had clear products and services
- All of the companies you named were disruptor to an existing market. The car market and even EV market existed when Tesla was created. The rental and property management market existed when AirBnb came. Taxi services existed when Uber came to market. Media rental and streaming services existed when Netflix came to market.
AI is a brand new industry and one of the core companies with near the largest market cap for a company who's primary product is AI is overhyped and over leveraged. They have not communicated a clear path to profitability. Why do you think that its?
You can't show me a successful company with similar attributes because its not sustainable. Open Ai's primary reason for growth is market hype. Not the product. Thats a problem.
What is the profitability model?
Who are the customers? What is the product? How do you sustain it? What is the key market need being addressed?
I can answer this very easily with Uber, Netflix, Tesla, and AirBnB.
Can you name it for any AI company who's primary product is AI tools?
This question matters because who are investing in a product that has not show any path to profitability and who rise is powered by market hype. Thats literally what an economic bubble is.
If you can name a tangible path to profitability for AI based on the amount invested i'll shut up, but all im reading from you is applications that do not directly generate positve cash flow for a product and wont recoup trillions in investment.