Would you care to provide any evidence for your speculation that people are willing to pay enough for AI to sustain its costs?
ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users and their total revenue in 2025 was 13 billion with 70% coming from normal users. That's drop in the bucket though considering they've commited to investing a trillion dollars into new computing capacity over the next 10 years.
ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users of which the vast majority are normal people - not companies. The demand is there despite it not being able to increase company profit margins the way people expected. I don't see this computing infrastructure needing to run idle anytime soon.
My Leatherman Wave and my olive green Shemagh scarf are both close to 20 years old now so would be quite a bummer to lose either one of them. The Leatherman already almost got stolen once.
I bet this guy gets sponsorship offer after another and he refuses all of them. He has multiple videos in progress all the time. Some take years to finish. He might do a job and then at the end of the video he revisits the site half year later or for example waits for a rainy day to shoot video of how the new drainage ditch works. I challenge anyone to find a more authetic YouTuber.
Well Wranglerstar is pretty good example. Used to be about homesteading and tools, then turned into politics, grifting and Jesus talk. There's even a subreddit dedicated for hating him for it.
Van Neistat (Casey's brother) is another one for me. It's actually one of those channels that went from me utterly loving it to entirely stopping watching it the quickest. I can't really put my finger on why but I think I just started to get the sense that this is a job for him, not a passion.
It doesn't matter that you personally don't use it. Other people do and you can't escape the influence they have on you no more than they can that of an LLM.
I also find it odd to have such a strong opinion about something you have zero first-hand experience of.
In this particular case I'm okay with it but I don't see it as stealing. Human artists are influenced by the art of other artists the same way. It's only stealing if you're selling copies of the original piece as your own. I wouldn't have any problem with someone copying my entire photography portfolio to train an AI to generate pictures with my style because it takes nothing away from me. Just sell them as your own then instead of claiming they were taken by me.
I've yet to detect even a hint of right-wing / nazi bias on Grok. I get that it's a popular narrative but it simply just doesn't hold true according to my experience. It's not that much different from ChatGPT really - just slightly less restricted.
Would be a lot quicker and easier if you just googled it yourself.
OpenAI's annualized revenue hits $10 billion, up from $5.5 billion in December 2024
OpenAI hits $12 billion in annualized revenue, The Information reports
OpenAI (MSFT) Revenue Doubles to $10 Billion as AI Adoption Accelerates
OpenAI revenue doubles to $12 bn, clocks in 700 mn weekly ChatGPT users
OpenAI hits $12 Billion annualized revenue with 700M weekly users
OpenAI generates $4.3 billion in revenue in first half of 2025, the Information reports
OpenAI has five years to turn $13 billion into $1 trillion
OpenAI hits $10 billion in annual recurring revenue fueled by ChatGPT growth