upvote
Have you peeked at how the (very complicated) financial markets work?

Lot's of people staring at computers moving money and ious around complicated networks within complicated rules making money making money making money.

Really progressing humanity forward :/

reply
>Really progressing humanity forward :/

You're using amazing technology funded through those financial processes to complain that those financial processes aren't progressing humanity forward lol. Modern AI is the perfect example of how financial systems are important for technological progression.

Thinking complex financial systems aren't contributing to humanity's progress because you don't recognize how it is used to fundamentally support the work that progresses humanity is like thinking taxes are a scam because you don't recognize how much you actually benefit from taxes everyday.

reply
It's sad that you are being downvoted, for what you say it's pretty correct.

A lot of people don't understand the reason why financial markets were created and why they continue to exist.

There's a really good book called "Against the Gods, the remarkable history of Risk" which gives a good account on an aspect of why financial markets exist.

Basically, parts of society want to advance things (technology, arts, medicine, etc) but that same part doesn't have to carry the risk of doing their project. Financial markets are there to transfer the risk to people willing [able] to take on it.

Credit and Risk are two tools that have influenced the progress of civilization so much, its crazy.

Sure, there are people that abuse financial markets, the same way there are abusive people in Tech, Arts, or any other human endeavor. But that should not disqualify the whole system.

reply
Replace the people with LLMs and we're well on our way to immanentizing the "Vile Offspring" of Stross's Accelerando.
reply
This seems reductive. Character.ai has > 20 million monthly active users, and a lot of company valuation happens on the basis of user count (which is legitimate, that's not vaporware)
reply
If you set fire to a stack of money and some folks warm themselves by it, was that creating value?
reply
I have the impression that if MAU by itself was sufficient, the company wouldn’t have had to file for bankruptcy.

Obviously the company failed to convert its MAU into paying users, despite the fact the token costs greatly declined over the last years.

reply
Why don't they just not count token costs at all (or any other cost-per-user) and only look at profits, like what Anthropic is doing to figure out if they're profitable?
reply
I disagree that it's reductive. If each user costs more in API tokens then your company isn't valuable. That's what everyone's been screaming from the rooftops about there being a bubble. We certainly use tons of AI at the company I work for, if we were paying full API prices then I would bet we'd be barely using it.
reply
There's always enterprise wheeling and dealing to keep something discounted, but enterprises are absolutely paying API prices for tokens. For AI coding a least, the issue is more about attributing tokens to a real backlog (no leeching tokens for side projects) and keeping things from running away, both of which all the major AI coding platforms offer solutions for.
reply
webvan and pets.com have entered the chat.
reply
Did pets.com really have 20 million monthly active users? What were they using it for?
reply
As we saw after the hero Zelenskyy took down Yandex data centers, user count seems to be vaporware in many cases.
reply
I'm seeing this repeated a lot, but I'm rarely seeing the evidence to back it up. Presumably you're not speaking about Yandex's search engine crawlers here, right?

In an internet full of metrics and graphs, it's odd that nobody's bringing anything to the table and is just repeating the meme. A bit bottish in itself, tbh.

If it turned out "usercount was vapourware" due to 3 Russian data centres getting btfo, I think there'd have been a global financial crisis underway as we speak.

reply
I don't see any connection to Character.ai, but it's pretty obvious that Twitter is 90% bots, politically leaning heavily in same direction as Twitter's owner, whose pro-Trump interests are aligned with those of Russia.

Where all all these bots being hosted? I have no idea, but it certainly would not be surprising to find many of them coming from Russia (Yandex). Twitter must at least know the IP addressees of these bot accounts, but does nothing to stop them. Perhaps they are actually run by Musk not Putin, who makes no attempt to hide his attempt to use his position to subvert American democracy.

reply
A drug dealer at the corner also has lots of active monthly users.
reply
Not 20 million he doesn't
reply
It seems like a lot of people enjoyed using the product. Isn't that value?
reply
Not when the product creates psychosis in people and makes them lonelier and sadder than before and encourages them to starve and cut themselves. Where is the value in this? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/characterai-chatbot...
reply
It's a roleplay app, an AI version of the old RP forums, or RP private chats. Anyone sane and slightly mature understands they're not being encouraged to do anything IRL. The main problem I see here is a lack of parenting.
reply
the rich in society (corps, individuals) are so absurdly rich that they can keep throwing money till something sticks with almost 0 risk. If you believe AI is something civilizationally transformational which it is resonable to believe, then why not throw some money at it.
reply
But lot of numbers went up. And that mean lot of other numbers went up. Which means "wealth" for many went up. And they got bonuses paid.
reply
A valuable company wasn't created in the end, but all kinds of value spewed out of this endeavor. The co-founders almost certainly walked away filthy rich. A few hundred people got 6-figure paychecks. A few early investors probably made a profit selling to greater fools.

It is rumored that their last round valued them at $6B.

reply
accrete means grow or make larger/greater; this is the opposite were a bunch of value moved around, some was lost (from an efficiency / opportunity cost perspective) and a bunch was concentrated into the hands of a few. That's not value growth.
reply
True, I meant to say value was ejected from this i.e. there were some peripheral winners. I had a totally wrong definition in my mind of the word "accrete" (I was linking it to accretion discs around black holes).
reply
The US just has a lot of venture capital money running around. It's common for biotech companies to raise about as much as Character.ai (although typically at lower valuations) and then never end up launching a successful product. From a societal perspective, it's valuable to be able to search the space of long shots; from a funder's perspective, the rewards of a good investment are high enough to pay for a lot of bad ones.
reply
welcome to the world of VC startups
reply
Get with the program, numbers go up = ai valuable. Don't look any closer, details are the AI's problem now.
reply