By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft’s 3 billion bet on Copilot is assessed to be a disaster

curl-6 on 26 May 2026
Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

As I explained previously, this is not an apples to apples comparison; the likes of Apple, Amazon, and Nvidia always had a viable, functional business model and a clear path to profitability. By contrast, Open AI for instance doesn't even have a plan for how to become profitable: https://www.startupbell.net/post/sam-altman-told-investors-bluntly-he-had-no-plans-on-how-to-generate-revenue

According to JP Morgan, to achieve a 10% return on capital expenditure, the AI sector needs to generate about $650 Billion a year in revenue. The actual run-rate is about $25 billion. In other words, run rate is only about 3.8% what it needs to be to justify the costs.

Meanwhile, AI's contributions to the economy? "Basically zero": https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ai-contributed-basically-zero-us-181419807.html

Sure, but look man I am old-ish.  I remember when people laughed when people said everything was going to have a .com because who needed to be connected all day long?  I remember when people scoffed at the idea of mobile phones for everyone.  AI is far from the first time, in my life, where people didn't see the long-term value.  

Yes — Amazon lost money in its first years after starting in 1994. The company was founded by Jeff Bezos in a garage in Bellevue, Washington, and launched as an online bookstore in 1995 Wikipedia+1.

In its early stages, Amazon reinvested heavily into infrastructure, technology, and expanding product categories, even though it was not making profits. This “growth over profit” strategy meant the company was spending more than it earned, leading to hundreds of millions in losses during the first several years LinkedIn.

Amazon’s first profitable quarter came in Q4 2001, about seven years after launch, with a profit of just $5 million on over $1 billion in sales LinkedIn. Even after going public in 1997, it continued to lose money for years, with total losses in 1996 still around $2.2 million LSA Technology Services.

So, while Amazon did not turn a profit until late 2001, it was not unusual for a company in its early stage to operate at a loss if it was focused on building long-term value rather than short-term earnings.

Amazon always had a clear plan, is the difference.

By contrast, Open AI's Sam Altman told a room of investors with a straight face that "first we will make AGI, then we will ask the AGI how to make money". It's telling that the whole room laughs at him, it's like saying "first I will find out how to turn lead into gold, then I will be rich."



Around the Network
sc94597 on 26 May 2026

I think it is important to remember that in 2024, Open AI technically was still a non-profit or "capped"-profit entity.

It was 2025 when they fully transitioned to a for-profit company. 



CaptainExplosion on 26 May 2026
pokoko said:
shavenferret said:

This. We will be giving up an invaluable technology if we act like a bunch of luddites and just ban AI altogether. I also see good points that the anti-AI people here have made. But it will be up to us to turn our electronic devices off and go touch grass in order to feel like part of the world again. We don’t have to be super connected to the rest of the world all the time. Sometimes it’s just better to feel connected to our own lives. 

also, good move on getting into quantum stocks. I’m just doing index funds, pretty boring but the expense ratio is nil and I get 10% a year still which is rare. 

People trying to stop AI or any technological advancement might as well be shaking their fist at the clouds.  It's pointless.

So what do you suggest I do, sit back and wait for data centres to ruin the world's air quality and deprive us of drinking water and jobs? I can't learn how to do another job, art and animation are all I know, and I want to be able to breathe and stay hydrated.



pokoko on 27 May 2026
CaptainExplosion said:
pokoko said:

People trying to stop AI or any technological advancement might as well be shaking their fist at the clouds.  It's pointless.

So what do you suggest I do, sit back and wait for data centres to ruin the world's air quality and deprive us of drinking water and jobs? I can't learn how to do another job, art and animation are all I know, and I want to be able to breathe and stay hydrated.

Learn to code.



shavenferret on 27 May 2026
CaptainExplosion said:
pokoko said:

People trying to stop AI or any technological advancement might as well be shaking their fist at the clouds.  It's pointless.

So what do you suggest I do, sit back and wait for data centres to ruin the world's air quality and deprive us of drinking water and jobs? I can't learn how to do another job, art and animation are all I know, and I want to be able to breathe and stay hydrated.

Well, the cost of electricity is going to have to get a lot cheaper if this bad vision of AI as you are worried of, will have a chance of taking place. The more complicated the program gets, the cost of electricity needed to run the data processing will exponentially go up. Also, we are running to the end of Moore’s law so they won’t be able to keep making leaps forward in efficiency unless quantum computing really takes off. So this, or perhaps a bit better is where we will be for a while. 

Also, fossil fuels aren’t renewable, so their cost will continue to go up. Eventually this will erode the ability of the world’s economy to grow. At that point, the environmentalists will throw a party because they have won. 

So in short, you shouldn’t worry. 



Around the Network
Chrkeller on 27 May 2026
curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Sure, but look man I am old-ish.  I remember when people laughed when people said everything was going to have a .com because who needed to be connected all day long?  I remember when people scoffed at the idea of mobile phones for everyone.  AI is far from the first time, in my life, where people didn't see the long-term value.  

Yes — Amazon lost money in its first years after starting in 1994. The company was founded by Jeff Bezos in a garage in Bellevue, Washington, and launched as an online bookstore in 1995 Wikipedia+1.

In its early stages, Amazon reinvested heavily into infrastructure, technology, and expanding product categories, even though it was not making profits. This “growth over profit” strategy meant the company was spending more than it earned, leading to hundreds of millions in losses during the first several years LinkedIn.

Amazon’s first profitable quarter came in Q4 2001, about seven years after launch, with a profit of just $5 million on over $1 billion in sales LinkedIn. Even after going public in 1997, it continued to lose money for years, with total losses in 1996 still around $2.2 million LSA Technology Services.

So, while Amazon did not turn a profit until late 2001, it was not unusual for a company in its early stage to operate at a loss if it was focused on building long-term value rather than short-term earnings.

Amazon always had a clear plan, is the difference.

By contrast, Open AI's Sam Altman told a room of investors with a straight face that "first we will make AGI, then we will ask the AGI how to make money". It's telling that the whole room laughs at him, it's like saying "first I will find out how to turn lead into gold, then I will be rich."

Likely we will have to agree to disagree.  I think their path, especially copilot, is simple.  Get SP500 companies integrated, then charge license fee.  It will be like Office in short order.  MS will recoup their costs for copilot with ease.  Licenses for millions of copies for decades upon decades...  done and dusted.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

SvennoJ on 27 May 2026
shavenferret said:

Well, the cost of electricity is going to have to get a lot cheaper if this bad vision of AI as you are worried of, will have a chance of taking place. The more complicated the program gets, the cost of electricity needed to run the data processing will exponentially go up. Also, we are running to the end of Moore’s law so they won’t be able to keep making leaps forward in efficiency unless quantum computing really takes off. So this, or perhaps a bit better is where we will be for a while. 

Also, fossil fuels aren’t renewable, so their cost will continue to go up. Eventually this will erode the ability of the world’s economy to grow. At that point, the environmentalists will throw a party because they have won. 

So in short, you shouldn’t worry. 

Eventually might be too late for civilization to survive. Civilization collapse is nothing new and we're not immune with our limited technology and maximum hubris. The hope is nuclear fusion can later provide clean and limitless energy, but the cost effect ratio for a full power plant is still unknown next to when it could be ready to scale up. You would think more money and resources would be invested in Nuclear fusion research yet compared to money invested in military destruction and data centers it's nothing.

The environmentalists won't be throwing any parties as climate change is becoming more damaging every further year we fail to curb it and only make it worse with wars and data centers. Oil isn't running out anytime soon, plus bio-ethanol is prolonging the reliance on oil while putting more strain on the food supply. The world running out of fresh water will happen sooner. Many current wars already involve disputes over water sources.

The idea that a thriving economy will solve all problems is a fallacy. The thriving economy got us to this crisis point, yet people continue to stick their head in the sand and now bet on AI to come to the rescue. Literally a ultra high stakes bet, no guarantees, no solution, just keep investing, keep building more data centers and maybe something good will come out of all the short term destruction. The end justifies the means... Except the end goal for those behind the data centers is not at all aligned with the majority needs of the world population.



CaptainExplosion on 28 May 2026
SvennoJ said:
shavenferret said:

Well, the cost of electricity is going to have to get a lot cheaper if this bad vision of AI as you are worried of, will have a chance of taking place. The more complicated the program gets, the cost of electricity needed to run the data processing will exponentially go up. Also, we are running to the end of Moore’s law so they won’t be able to keep making leaps forward in efficiency unless quantum computing really takes off. So this, or perhaps a bit better is where we will be for a while. 

Also, fossil fuels aren’t renewable, so their cost will continue to go up. Eventually this will erode the ability of the world’s economy to grow. At that point, the environmentalists will throw a party because they have won. 

So in short, you shouldn’t worry. 

Eventually might be too late for civilization to survive. Civilization collapse is nothing new and we're not immune with our limited technology and maximum hubris. The hope is nuclear fusion can later provide clean and limitless energy, but the cost effect ratio for a full power plant is still unknown next to when it could be ready to scale up. You would think more money and resources would be invested in Nuclear fusion research yet compared to money invested in military destruction and data centers it's nothing.

The environmentalists won't be throwing any parties as climate change is becoming more damaging every further year we fail to curb it and only make it worse with wars and data centers. Oil isn't running out anytime soon, plus bio-ethanol is prolonging the reliance on oil while putting more strain on the food supply. The world running out of fresh water will happen sooner. Many current wars already involve disputes over water sources.

The idea that a thriving economy will solve all problems is a fallacy. The thriving economy got us to this crisis point, yet people continue to stick their head in the sand and now bet on AI to come to the rescue. Literally a ultra high stakes bet, no guarantees, no solution, just keep investing, keep building more data centers and maybe something good will come out of all the short term destruction. The end justifies the means... Except the end goal for those behind the data centers is not at all aligned with the majority needs of the world population.

Then I was right and AI is going to destroy us all. Thanks for nothing, Altman. I hope Altman and those other rich AI slobs die for dooming the world.

And everyone here who advocates for AI, I hope you're happy with speeding up our extinction.



CaptainExplosion on 28 May 2026

The world really would be a much better place if every AI data was destroyed, even if the people have to destroy them. AI scum have ignored laws protecting the people, so why should we obey laws protecting AI scum?



shavenferret on 28 May 2026
CaptainExplosion said:
SvennoJ said:

Eventually might be too late for civilization to survive. Civilization collapse is nothing new and we're not immune with our limited technology and maximum hubris. The hope is nuclear fusion can later provide clean and limitless energy, but the cost effect ratio for a full power plant is still unknown next to when it could be ready to scale up. You would think more money and resources would be invested in Nuclear fusion research yet compared to money invested in military destruction and data centers it's nothing.

The environmentalists won't be throwing any parties as climate change is becoming more damaging every further year we fail to curb it and only make it worse with wars and data centers. Oil isn't running out anytime soon, plus bio-ethanol is prolonging the reliance on oil while putting more strain on the food supply. The world running out of fresh water will happen sooner. Many current wars already involve disputes over water sources.

The idea that a thriving economy will solve all problems is a fallacy. The thriving economy got us to this crisis point, yet people continue to stick their head in the sand and now bet on AI to come to the rescue. Literally a ultra high stakes bet, no guarantees, no solution, just keep investing, keep building more data centers and maybe something good will come out of all the short term destruction. The end justifies the means... Except the end goal for those behind the data centers is not at all aligned with the majority needs of the world population.

Then I was right and AI is going to destroy us all. Thanks for nothing, Altman. I hope Altman and those other rich AI slobs die for dooming the world.

And everyone here who advocates for AI, I hope you're happy with speeding up our extinction.

I still think that humans running out of fossil fuels will reduce our tech to much lower levels than it stands as of now. What will happen when gasoline becomes super expensive? Well move to ev batteries? And when those metals become super expensive and people don’t want to buy ev cars anymore? Humanity is at or close to its peak right now.

Am I a doomed? lol