this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
554 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

86563 readers
3102 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OptimusPrimeDownfall@discuss.tchncs.de 380 points 1 month ago (13 children)

I'm sorry, did everybody else not see this coming from miles away? This is the private equity playbook.

  1. Make a service so cheap as to seem to good to be true to attract customers.
  2. Gain a loyal base of people
  3. once theyre locked in, squeeze them for all they're worth.

When something is too good to be true, you ALWAYS have to be ready to either jump ship, massively change how you do things, or pay through the nose.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 80 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Pretty sure they picked the wrong tech to try and lock people into. It isn't hardware and doesn't have some kind of proprietary interface that takes time to get used to when switching. Some models might be better than others at specific things, but not enough to justify the prices they are going to charge for output you have to review and fix.

This is literally the easiest thing to jump ship from.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That's the stupidest thing about these AI companies' valuation.

They don't even really own anything!

Their models -- their main proprietary IP -- are not copyrightable or patentable, and not legally protected in any way. Any competitor can copy them at any time and then offer the same service for cheaper, without the overhead costs for training. The giants of the AI industry could easily be undercut and replaced at any time.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The hardest part about the copying is the actual copying without having access to the weights or even just a ready to run file for the model.

IIRC Deepseek kinda did something like that by asking ChatGPT tons of questions to train their own model or something

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 10 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you can do that ... or some good old fashioned corporate espionage.

Or, hell, just ask ChatGPT for its weights model. With how shitty these AI companies are at security and guardrails, that might just work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagermo@feddit.org 11 points 1 month ago

All of them also bring their own comfortable export feature.

"I want to share all of this with my team. Create the prompt that is necessary to do this"

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is literally the easiest thing to jump ship from.

It depends how heavily you are leaning on ML tools to do business processes honestly.

It's easy to implement something that mostly works and doesn't need a ton of baby sitting, but moving from one solution to another is like rebuilding an ERP if you have gotten deep enough into the weeds.

This bubble is super scary though. The only things I can see propping it up would be world governments once the tech companies and other large enterprises halt spending. I don't think the US can shoulder the costs and nobody else is gonna lol

[–] Maestro@fedia.io 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Have you seen the IPOs and the rule changes that the stock exchanges and index funds made to please the AI overlords? It'll be US pension funds left holding the bag when the bubble goes pop

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

astronaut meme.

Privatize the profits and socialize the losses man.

[–] urandom@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Since the article is talking about devs, any who were able to code before should be able to carry on without an LLM by their side. They might not be as “productive”, but jumping ship, or even forgoing one, should not be a challenge.

[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This is literally the easiest thing to jump ship from.

I'm not sure about that. We see professional developers complaining all the time when their AWS or GitHub account is banned. But this time we're talking about vibe coders who have less skills than the average developer.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

And they need to subscribe to access and execute their troubleshooting options.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago

If you're a pure vibe coder, this is literally 9/11.

[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

It would be if so many companies hadn't bought into the microsoft ecosystem so hard. My company did the usual BS of "well we have an e5 license so it's free". Now we are married to all their stupid shit and have no relationships with other providers. End of the month gonna be expensive. Now expect a scramble to cut master service agreements and contracts with others in a panic.

[–] chisel@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

It isn’t hardware and doesn’t have some kind of proprietary interface that takes time to get used to when switching.

The proprietary interface is kinda the largest selling point, besides the once cheap prices. But the $10 plan going from 300 multi-hour prompts per month to 20 quick prompts per month effectively makes it worthless. Though, you could just pay a few hundred/thousand per month and continue, or bring your own API key from elsewhere, but at that point just use someone else's interface. It's not that much better than competitors and copilot isn't offering anything unique.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago

It can still be pretty difficult to jump ship for any large corporation, but yeah there's certainly harder things.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 59 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The unique thing about GitHub Copilot (and all the other vibe-coding tools) is that they're speed-running the playbook because this shit is not profitable. It can't be. Their costs scale up with usage, unlike every other business that can take advantage of economies of scale, so they've skipped the slow, steady enshittification phase and jumped directly into the "squeeze blood from this stone to keep the scam going a little longer" phase.

[–] BladeFederation@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Good sign that it may be over soon.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Absolutely 100% do not count on it

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago

they’re speed-running the playbook because this shit is not profitable.

Wait, what? You say it is a scam? A kind of technical Ponzi scheme? A Madoff syndicate on steroids?

[–] pooterbroo@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Plain inference is profitable actually, that's why there are a hundred inference providers on OpenRouter who compete by undercutting each other. The labs however aren't profitable because training the models is a huge drain.

[–] Cenotaph@mander.xyz 7 points 1 month ago

But they can only do that because others are doing traning, no? There's no point at which you can go "okay it's all inference from here", the model needs to be updated with new information/guardrails/context to continue being useful for most use cases

[–] chris@l.roofo.cc 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In a vacuum maybe but are they profitable if you add the infrastructure investments to the mix? What about model development? There was a shit ton of money that was spent. Covering the running costs is not enough. At some point someone has to pay for the investments.

Didn't deepseek train their model for $6m?

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

As others have pointed out, the compute cost of inference is only one small part of the puzzle. All the frontier model providers - which OpenRouter gives you access to - are massively raising their prices in desperate bids to recoup the cost of model generation in the first place.

There's really no hiding from the token apocalypse unless you're running a model on your own hardware.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I've been preaching this for the past couple of years. Everything up until now has been entirely about gaining market share, and AI will never be cheaper than it is right now, and it's not cheap.

Just look at the "earnings" for companies like openAI. They are 1000+% in the red. It's impossible for them to change their sales model enough to make that profitable. As more data centers go up, the operating costs are also going to go up.

I've been telling people that now is the best time in the past decade or more to learn how to code. There will be positions available in the coming years when the only junior devs available are vibe coders.

[–] MadBigote@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Care to elaborate on why we'd need more programmers? As of las year there was a "surplus" of them and they were purged from FAANGs and the rest followed suit. As of me, im about to get my degree in CS, but Im in my mid 30s and just got it for the lols, as j work in a difference field and the expectative of switching industries is not feasible in my country.

But i have a in-law getting her CS degree, and I don't see their chances of employment any morr positive than last the last year

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I think that currently, a lot of places are replacing junior devs with AI. As senior devs retire or quit because of AI, there won't be skilled juniors to take those positions. It's my belief that there will be a vacuum left that needs to be filled by people that can code, not just use AI to vibe code.

I could definitely be wrong, but it's kind of cyclical like the dotcom bubble too. There was a surplus of devs, then a shortage. I think we're approaching the latter. If/when the bubble pops, we'll find out.

It's expensive to get a degree, but I also think having at least basic coding understanding both fundamentally changes the way a person thinks for the better and to be good, you have to have a good breadth of knowledge on computers and a wide array of different processes across different fields, so you become a more well rounded person.

Anecdotally, I pivoted from sys admin for a decade to full stack in my mid thirties. I was fortunate to have a connection that got me in the door, and it's been a lot of work starting over, but I've done it. You mentioned in your country that it's not feasible, but maybe if you can find an in somewhere or if the landscape changes significantly enough that unavailable positions open up, you might be able to catch a break.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I remember having to sit down my boss and explain how it can only become more expensive over time. It’s the big tech playbook after all. Didn‘t matter. I‘m told again and again how AI is only becoming stronger and cheaper. Especially during salary negotiations. Nasty stuff. They know I know it‘s BS and they still cling to this nonsensical narrative because it would be very beneficial to them and very bad for me.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

Open weight LLMs are actually pretty cheap because there are competing providers. But something tells me your boss isn't using openrouter to find the best price per million tokens lol

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah - people are talking about replacing jobs with AI. As if it is not totally obvious that people like Sam Altman will totally bleed you dry after you fired all your workers. You will not save on your wage bill, you will simply give the money to Sam Altman

[–] KillerWhale@orcas.enjoying.yachts 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wages are treated as an immediate operational cost, while AI is framed as a capital investment. This accounting distinction makes AI look like a long-term asset, whereas labor remains perpetually categorized as an expense.

[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only if you are running your own servers. You dont get to depreciate a SaaS subscription or metered bill.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

And the servers are only useful for AI and they don't last long.

[–] pluge@piefed.social 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The crazy thing is, this isn't really a "squeeze" in the traditional sense. The problem was that every single mainstream AI product has been heavily subsidized....because it's wildly expensive and not even close to being profitable.

That sort of subsidization was only going to last for so long. The dam is starting to crack. People aren't ready to pay what AI truly costs.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 15 points 1 month ago

The angry devs from this article are idiots

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I didn't see it coming as I am on Codeberg 😎

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I mean you could equally be on github and just not use copilot

[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] ptu@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] kurmudgeon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The tactic has worked for drug dealers for decades

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is going much faster than most private equity enshittification. That usually takes about 5 years to start. And has a system or hardware that makes switching painful. That doesn't apply here, it's easy to switch and almost a drop in change.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Admittedly, it's capitalism. But I just chose a negative entity.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

Human beings are terrible at balancing short-term gains for long-term consequences. It's mixed into our DNA. Our ancient ancestors, securing immediate calories or escaping a threat was a matter of life and death. Long-term planning wasn't as critical as immediate survival. Now do note, that's not an excuse for the people who foolish went head long into this.

This is why this struggle with the rich and powerful is eternal. It fundamentally taps on an ingrained flaw we collective fall for every single time. There is no one solution, there can never be one solution. People must forever fight themselves and the powerful from the exploitation of this fundamental flaw of humanity.