this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
35 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

42981 readers
387 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

AI is, as it stands, not economically viable for anybody involved other than the construction firms, NVIDIA, and the surrounding hardware companies benefitting from the irrational exuberance of a data center buildout that doesn’t appear to be happening at the speed we believed.

Every AI startup loses millions or billions of dollars a year, and nobody appears to have worked out a way to stop hemorrhaging cash. Hyperscalers have invested over $800 billion in the last three years, with plans to add another $700 billion or so in 2026 and another $1 trillion in 2027, meaning that they need to make at least three trillion dollars in AI specific revenue just to break even, and $6 trillion or more for AI to be anything other than a wash. I went into detail about this (albeit at a lower, pre-2026/2027 capex number) in a premium piece last year.

To give you some context, Microsoft made $281 billion, Meta $200 billion, Amazon $716 billion, and Google $402.8 billion in revenue in their most-recent fiscal years for every single product combined, for a total of $1.599 trillion. None of them will talk about their actual AI revenues. Yes, yes, I know Microsoft said that it had $37 billion in AI revenue run rate ($3.08 billion a month or so) and Amazon had $15 billion, or around $1.25 billion a month, but both of these are snapshots of single months that are meant to make it sound like they’re going to make that much in a year but in the end, you don’t actually know anything about how much money they’ve made from AI.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've been sitting this from the rooftops, but nobody seems to be listening. LLMs do not create enough value to justify their cost, and their costs rise exponentially for small, incremental gains. It's a money pit.

Worse, it's a massive sunk cost masquerading as investment. Inflated equity validations are propped up by an illusion. I know that timing a crash is impossible, but I literally don't understand how anyone paying attention doesn't see what's coming.

It's going to be bad. 80% such market declines aren't atypical, historically.

And this isn't even touching on the Republican dismantling of the American government apparatus and spending billions in a war to disrupt global supply chains of critical resources.

It's going to be really bad.

[–] sanzky@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

I think AI is a huge red herring for a lot of the massive layoffs we have seen. this is class warfare masquerading as a technological shift. I dont trust for a second most of these CEOs believe what they are saying (the dumbs ones for sure do).

[–] Kwakigra@beehaw.org 12 points 2 days ago

It's weird that I've spent most of my time living in a post-economic world of abundance which I'm not allowed to acknowledge or encourage others to acknowledge because the pretend economy of valuation and confidence depends on exclusively on showmanship and nothing else. The LLM bubble may persist because the work being "saved" never needed to be done in the first place, so it not being done makes no difference to investors being told what got done as usual.