The US dictionary Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2025 was “slop”, which it defines as “digital content of low quality that is produced, usually in quantity, by means of artificial intelligence”. The choice underlined the fact that while AI is being widely embraced, not least by corporate bosses keen to cut payroll costs, its downsides are also becoming obvious. In 2026, a reckoning with reality for AI represents a growing economic risk.
Ed Zitron, the foul-mouthed figurehead of AI scepticism, argues pretty convincingly that, as things stand, the “unit economics” of the entire industry – the cost of servicing the requests of a single customer against the price companies are able to charge them – just don’t add up. In typically colourful language, he calls them “dogshit”.
Revenues from AI are rising rapidly as more paying clients sign up but so far not by enough to cover the wild levels of investment under way: $400bn (£297bn) in 2025, with much more forecast in the next 12 months.
Another vehement sceptic, Cory Doctorow, argues: “These companies are not profitable. They can’t be profitable. They keep the lights on by soaking up hundreds of billions of dollars in other people’s money and then lighting it on fire.”
I wouldn’t pay money for access to AI. The convenience is not worth a single cent to me. But am I the average person? Is the average person sold on this nonsense enough to subscribe to it? The first hit is free to get you hooked. So if the plan is to get the average person dependent on it while it’s free and then eventually charge for it, i’m not buying and I wonder how many people will. AI output is fucking garbage.
I know a few people who subscribe who I never would have expected to do so, but I also know people who have started asking “why does Google show me an AI summary all the time when I don’t need it?” I think any sheen it had is diminishing, slowly but surely.
Think you meant kagi with a K dude
That link took me to a site with what I think was Chinese on it.
I setup a local ollama instance trying to look for ways to integrate it into my regular work. I do IT stuff, from basic helpdesk to office 365 Configs, and almost anything in-between
At best I just use it as a sounding board, basically rubber duck debugging.
I prefer the rubber duck.
In my university, people are paying and saying wonders about it… that’s terrifying
They even talk daily about which model is best, just like children discussing which super hero is stronger
My management has fallen in love with it, but is considering dropping because the commercial fees to use copilot haven’t seen a return on investment.
Out of the 3 people at my company who pay for chat gpt or grok, the 2 chat gpt users are too reliant on it, while the grok user believes he is talking to a living super intelligence.
Well, no one is paying shit for my uni thesis, and most others like it. University reports under PhD level are of absolutely no value. And even most PhD are not commercially viable.
So what you are saying is that Ai is good at getting a good grade in an exam, but that doesn’t mean it can commercially make a viable product.
Things that used to be free: Google searches, YouTube, Android, Reddit - all have enshittified in different ways (e.g. Reddit is still free of direct monetary charge, but now restrictive rather than “free”).
AI is simply following this well-trodden path, or rather people are claiming that is what is happening.
Google search, youtube and android at least make owners money. ChatGPT just burns dumptrucks full of cash just to create the option to burn more cash.
ChatGPT makes Sam Altman money.
Is something “worth” what someone will pay for it?
Investing in OpenAi makes Altman money, not Chat Gpt. They spend last year trying to decrease the cost of a query after all.
you have to remember how dumb the “average” person is, who absolutely thinks that AI chatbots give good answers and doesn’t notice or think about the accuracy
My dad never had the patience to write a single python program. Last year (2025) he wrote an entire android app that displays values from some hardware sensor graphically (with a neat animation) in like 1 week with the help of chatgpt. it does help people. it makes mistakes, but so do humans. the question is, is it more productive to do with than without? and i’d say, for some use-cases it’s more productive with than without.
All we hear when CEO’s, managers, techbros, ai “artists” are still trying to hype genAi . . .
deleted by creator
Welcome to 2026, where “kill”, “obese” and “predator” are swearwords.
Honestly love to see how these companies figure to make a profit in any given future. There are not enough humans with the money or care to pay even a minimal subscription. This is why they’re jamming it up our ass. An AI subscription will have to be the next internet or phone bill for this thing to even think about making a profit.
But what about commercial uses? There are plenty, but not enough to make a profit. Companies are already cautiously rolling back subscriptions.
An AI subscription will have to be the next internet or phone bill for this thing to even think about making a profit.
Not really, since even the paying subscribers are costing the companies money. If they were a baker, they’re doing the equivalent of selling 1-dollar loaves of bread that cost 2,50 to knead and bake, and that’s not even counting the fact that you need to buy flour first.
What was it again. OpenAI makes now almost a third of running costs in subscriptions?
Looks like consumer subscriptions are 1/3rd of total revenue, which doesn’t cover nearly 1/3rd of operating costs. Yikes! Worse than I thought.
It’s not a ‘product’ in the conventional sense. It’s a gateway to an intellegent astroturf machine. Buy a ton of fake accounts for every social media platform, make them appear ‘legit’, then have bots comb for anything they can shoehorn a message into and have your ai bot army manipulate public perception. That’s the only use case I could see companies actually willing to pay that kinda money for.
They’ve gone into deep, deep debt, and the pay-off is looking more like vaporware every day. They dun fuckt up bad.
The article the Guardian author used as a primary source (and referenced) is amazing, probably best article I’ve read in the last year.
it’s just “slop”, the AI is silent (or islop)
The bar for discourse re: AI is pathetically low. I guess par for dis course.
