Quite true. The thing is, there aren’t billions and billions of dollars in chatbots. The billions are for the creative stuff and the code.
And that is where the reckoning / correction will come from, the bill has to come due eventually. When top end generative AI starts to have a real cost associated with it, then it’s no longer a blanket ‘everyone start using this immediately’ mandate, it prompts some consideration of cost versus output quality.
Not pop. Correct.
A lot of the managers aggressively pushing AI have little or no understanding of it themselves. They just hear of a technology that can make a human more productive by doing most of the work for them. So absolutely that’s worth a ton of money. It’s why many companies are encouraging if not demanding employees to start using AI- because in their mind, one employee fully utilizing AI can do the work of two standard employees. Of course they believe this because they’ve never actually had to use the damn thing themselves and thus don’t realize it doesn’t do all the work for you. Or worse they think it does and your wonderful code base turns into spaghetti.
Side note- A few companies even had leaderboards for who was using the most AI tokens. This led to ‘tokenmaxxing’, trying to consume as many tokens as possible to prove you are adopting AI. Things like 'Write unit tests for our company code base, then refactor the code base. Spin up an instance of Claude and another of ChatGPT to each generate unit tests of the old code and run them against the new code, then run the tests against each other to check each other’s work, submit full debug output to another instance of gpt 5.5 that will check for hallucinations… Keep that query going for a few paragraphs and you’ll have an army of AI workers all checking each other’s work while producing zero productive output but costing a fortune to run.
Ever run an AI model locally? If you want the most capability you need a fast GPU with 32-48gb RAM. And that’s all for you, ONE user.
Copilot has millions of users, with tens or hundreds of thousands of them hitting the AI all at once. Each one needs $thousands worth of GPU and RAM dedicated to them for the length of their query processing.
Where do you think the money to buy all that hardware comes from? You see OpenAI buying a double digit percentage of the world’s RAM production, you think they got it on clearance sale?
No, there are investors. Investors who are pouring hundreds of billions into this AI stuff. And they don’t do this because it’s fun, they do it because they expect a BIG return.
So what’s going on is just like your neighborhood drug pusher, only the drug pusher is more honest. He says ‘first hit’s free, man’. AI company says ‘AI models are an easy and cost effective way to modernize your workflow!’; they don’t tell you that once you’ve integrated them and fired all the humans who know how to do the work, the price is gonna go way up.
Because the fact is, there IS a real cost of AI compute. GPU time, or at the large scale, datacenter space, power, cooling, etc.
In another few months to few years, the C-suites will stop huffing the koolaid and will start doing cost-benefit analysis on where AI is and isn’t cost-effective vs. humans. With any luck (for the AI people) by that time the AIs will be good enough that it’s a clear benefit. If not this bubble’s gonna pop.
I think that was before. Now it’s based on the compute cost of the request. Like if you ask a large model to perform a long and difficult task you’ll pay through the nose. If you ask a simple model to perform an easy task it’ll be dirt cheap. And that’s what’s got people pissed, is that what used to be ‘one query’ now may consume a lot of credits and it may not be clear how many.
And let’s not forget- don’t listen to customers.
Do customers want a ‘Hero 47’ camera with a new one every year? Nope.
Do customers want to be pushed into a paid cloud video storage and editing system that can’t handle the camera’s full resolution? Nope.
Do customers want a reliable camera that has good battery life, doesn’t overheat or crash, and generally works as advertised? YES THEY DO!
So what should we do? Let’s release a new camera every year, with the same overheating and firmware bugs, and push people into a phone based video platform.
Now we don’t understand why Insta is doing so well…
They stopped selling an OK camera and started selling cameras that overheat in the shade with dark patterns to try and force you into using their mobile app for video processing.
make action cameras that people want to buy?
instead of pushing the same product with minor updates for greater costs which bring no benefit to the consumer?
They might try making cameras that don’t overheat and shut down after 10 minutes…
Sad, but not surprising. I like GoPro, their cameras are pretty nice. But they have not innovated well. And you look at actual users, and it’s the same complaints always- camera overheats, battery doesn’t last long enough, firmware bugs, unresponsive support.
Then look at the new darling, Insta. Their 360 camera is perfect for creators that don’t know what shot they are going to want.
It would be very sad to see GoPro bite the dust, but if they do they’ve no one to blame but themselves.
Yes exactly. If you need more total capacity you add more tanks, if you need more instantaneous output power you add more electrodes. And thus you can scale either one without messing with the other.
Here’s the short version.
A normal battery is a sealed cell. It has a positive and negative electrode, with an electrolyte between them. Usually many layers of this. When you charge it, a chemical change happens. When you discharge it, that chemical change is undone.
A redox flow battery uses fixed electrodes, but a liquid electrolyte that can be pumped and stored. This means you can increase overall storage capacity simply by adding more electrolyte tanks, without needing more electrodes. Think of it like a generator with a bigger gas tank.
The whole vanadium thing is just one of the metals used in the battery. There’s a few kind of redox flow batteries using different chemistries
Hmm Are you wedded to that particular Mac address? If not, shut down the VM, delete the virtual Network card, then make a new virtual Network card. Copy paste the Mac of that new card into pfsense with the static mapping, and fire up the VM. See what happens.
If that doesn’t work, I remember something it was possible for proxmox to do some kind of routed Network system. To investigate that, delete all static mappings, fire up the VM, and just look at what Mac address it shows getting the DHCP lease. Is it the one that shows as being assigned to the VM?
Yeah this still sounds very much like what I had happen. pfSense tries really hard to hang on to that old random dhcp lease sometimes.
Don’t worry about ARP- that just shows what currently exists.
You might try turn off the vm, delete the static mapping, then delete the DHCP lease in status - dhcp leases, then add the static mapping again and turn the vm back on.
Also on pfSense check /var/dhcpd/var/db/dhcpd.leases . Chances are your VM is in there. Turn off VM, stop DHCP service on pfSense, delete lease from that file, restart DHCP service, check static mapping, turn on VM.
Let me know if that works…
I think you have a PFsense problem not a proxmox problem.
I have encountered something similar to this in the past with PF sense. What fixed it for me is shut down the machine in question, let the DHCP lease show offline in PF sense, then use that very line on the status - DHCP leases page to assign the static IP address to it. Then when I booted it back up it worked.
Also copy and paste the MAC address right out of the DHCP leases table if you are adding it manually. I believe it may be case sensitive.
Yeah that’s the turbochef- variants of that exists at starbucks, dunkin, etc. It’s an oven that takes like 10,000 watts of power, uses a combination of infrared broiler and microwave and convection at the same time to turn a cold food item hot and crispy/sizzly in 45 seconds.
Absolutely. I remember when Google Chrome started to be a thing, they had an actual video ad showing that it could load and render the Google homepage in like 100 ms. And so we all switched from Firefox, which had become large and bloated.
Now Chrome is full of a ton of useless crap, most web pages are painful without ad blockers, and there is pretty much zero effort put into efficient web design.
I think it was sometime around the ‘$5 footlong’ era they put turbochef ovens in the stores…
But that’s missing the point.
Your opinion of Elon is irrelevant, so is mine.
FACTS matter though.
Do facts or truth matter to you? If not then my keystrokes are wasted. If so then you should care that you are stating as fact something which is provably incorrect.
I care about facts and truth. If I am stating something incorrect as fact, I always want to be made aware of it so I can correct my facts, and if necessary, re-evaluate my position (which I try to always base on facts rather than feelings or instinct).
Your opinion on Elon is of little concern to me. I was addressing facts alone.
Buy a quick googling, the lawsuit you are referencing is from the late 2010s around the time Eberhard was pushed out of the company. And thus I stand by my earlier statements about the company’s history. As I said, there was no love lost there.
But I am still trying to address your original position that Elon showed up after everything was done and took credit for it all, which I don’t believe is accurate.
I am not debating values, I am debating facts. I would generally agree that debating values especially when it comes to evaluating Elon is a waste of both of our time.
You are well within your right to not like the guy and he has certainly done plenty to deserve your dislike.
However, and this is the point I have been trying to make since the beginning, even if you don’t like him with good reason, even if hypothetically we both agreed that he’s a bad person, that doesn’t automatically mean everything he has ever done is bad. And that sort of revisionist history is my biggest complaint with both your comment and a lot of people who hate Elon in general.
If your position was ‘he accomplished a lot with Tesla and SpaceX but he is now in net negative to the country with how he helped Trump get reelected’ I would have very little to challenge that with.
But when it becomes not only is he bad now, but he was always bad all the time in every endeavor, that any accomplishment he might have had must be minimized, that’s what I disagree with and honestly you should too as an intelligent sounding person.
Here’s the problem… He says AI was adopted beyond his expectations. Great.
But if somebody is using it at the current price point of super cheap or free, are they going to keep using it when it gets expensive?
You can make a basic chatbot run on a desktop PC, but nobody wants to pay for that. Once you get into things with useful generation and large context windows, or things like video generation, suddenly you need one or more $10,000+ pieces of hardware to run it. So the $10 a month you charge the user is basically an introductory price that doesn’t cover your hardware fees let alone the software engineers to build your AI.
Eventually, the bill comes due. Eventually, you have to look at your customers and how much machine time they use each month and how much your r&d costs and figure out what the actual cost to the customer has to be. And then the customer rethinks how useful the AI is or isn’t.
People will pay $10 a month for chat GPT to write their emails. Will they pay $100 a month?
What about the company that replaced all their software developers with AI. Suddenly the AI cost as much or more as the software developers. Only now the developers who understood the code base work for other companies.
There will be a fun correction when this happens.