I mean, yes?

Maybe it's different where you live but QA pretty much disappeared a few years ago and project managers never had anything to do with the actual software

It was revealed to me in a dream

Also interested in this - the kWh figures people talk about do not match the price of the subscriptions

Nor do they have to. Inference from different users is batched together.

Ok? Even if they're batched? Grid energy is batched too

How else will you get iMessage?

AI companies must hate this right? Because they're selling tokens at a loss?

Google has started banning account that use Antigravy's discounted access instead of paying full price for the API https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/issues/14203

> Impact: > Users are losing access to their Google accounts permanently > No clear path to account restoration > Affects both personal and work accounts

honestly, this is why I would not trust gemini for anything. I have a lot tied to my gmail, I'm not going to risk that for some random ai that insists on being tied to the same account.

They blocked your entire Gmail/Google account , not just the Gemini access?

That's a recipe for bots to ruin a lot of people's life.

Using different Google accounts won't save you, once Google decide to ban for TOS, all related accounts go with it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30823910

Bold of you to assume profitability is one of their KPIs

My understanding was that if everyone paid and used AI the companies would go into liquidation on energy bills etc

Energy bills wouldn't be the problem if everyone used AI, energy supply would be.

Are you sure? I thought tokens (or watts) were sold at such a loss that if current supply limits were reached they’d go broke

These companies are generally profitable for inference but it does not cover the cost of R&D (training).

If its profitable why are they banning people from using it in systems like claw?

After a quick search it looks like Google is banning some people who are using Antigravity OAuth with OpenClaw as opposed to paying for API access.

I can't find any instance of an API which charges per-token banning users.

The entire marginal cost to serve AI models is paid for by the API costs of all providers by nearly every estimation. The cost not currently recouped is entirely in the training and net-new infrastructure that they're building.

And the open source models are only months behind, so the big AI companies need to keep burning money on R&D with no end in sight. If OpenAI took a quarter off from model development, they might fall behind forever.

So why are they banning people from using it in systems like claw?

From all indications the big players have healthy margins on inference.

Research and training are the cost sinks.

Is that just because people pay subscriptions and never use their tokens? Same model as ISPs

Did claudebot have paying customers? My understanding with these companies is that you buy the market, the product can just be forked (like Amazon did)

Sounds more like busy work rather than something that makes money

Well all of that is false and tbh sounds a bit sus

Infinite growth is a childish belief

If someone from the Phillipines clicks waypoints for a drone in Ukraine, is it a warcrime?

My exact reaction