>I find this very troubling for two reasons. First, while Claude and OpenAI are new, Google has been around for a long time. It should have thought better about pricing so that the tool is within the reach of the developing world.
Why? I don't see a practical argument for why Google would want to offer this service at a massive loss.
I feel like this is a huge problem with the progressive movement in the US. Morally sound arguments that rarely make practical or economic sense - and no, "tax the rich" doesn't get us there: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...
The phrasing is making it sound like a business argument though. "[Google] should have thought better ..." sounds like "well it would be better for Google the company to do ..."
Why? We are not talking about access to safe drinking water, AI is the latest tech vanity / bubble. Some people have more direct life concerns like unstable governments or access to education than making a ghiblified version of their photo.
Most people who are desperate to immigrate and risking their lives to cross the US border aren't doing it because they can't afford ChatGPT Pro but because of living in extreme poverty or danger.
US doesn't want gov debt even more. (not under dems ruling like last 4 year)
Money don't grow on the trees. Someone has to work or take debt. The question is should rich countries sponsor poor? Probably yes. How much? Trump decided enough is enough. EU want US to keep sponsoring the war. You know, they want it to continue but don't want to pay for it. So they try to hijack US government again by attacking Trump personally.
Immigration can be solved by border control. That's what dems fought so hard against trying to get more voters in. Another reason: they control food distribution.
ChatGPT (and all high end players in the current AI iteration) do not follow the normal laws of software economics.
Normally software has a near 0 marginal cost. This allows sellers to offer steap discounts because they cost the seller almost nothing. In many cases, sellers are better off having you use their software without paying instead of not using it; because they are out almost no money, but have increased their odds of a future sale
High end LLMs are different. Sellers are not setting their price to maximize revenue. They are setting their price to cover the marginal cost of providing the service plus margin.
Lowering their price is not a matter of price discrimination. It is a matter of engineering a cheeper product.
for now. Wait until you have to compete with those who do have it. It's like competing in a race with a ferrari without a race car. The same thing used to be said of the internet.
Not everything is a high-stakes competition. Not every car is a Ferrari, precisely because not every car needs to be. Same goes for your other example, the local sellers at my local market don’t require an internet presence to sustain their businesses.
That can be said about any infrastructure element. AI becomes one of them along with roads, telephones, electricity, etc. Should rich sponsor all of it to make poor around the world competitive? There are charities for this. Actually it's more complicated. The idea of world wide taxes was around for years.
A CS degree costs something like 124 yrs salary for someone in a low income nation—and it’s a much longer harder road. I’m not AI’s biggest fan, but arguably, this type of tech actually narrows the gap. Even if it’s expensive.
That’s a false equivalence¹. You don’t need a CS degree² to become a good programmer, you can do it with time, perseverance, and access to an old machine. Additionally, even if you needed a CS degree, you don’t keep paying for that indefinitely³ and get skills which last for life. An LLM subscription is something you have to keep paying for, and are screwed if you can no longer afford it, it goes down, or you’re in a place without internet connectivity.
³ In the sense that it’s not a subscription. I get that in the US you may be paying for student loans for an unreasonably long time, but that’s not normal for the rest of the world.
It sounds like you are talking about the cost of doing a CS degree in a developed country. The $736 (number used in article, source World bank) number multiplied by 124 gives you $93k. That is enough to manage a degree at one of the cheaper (but perfectly OK - regulated to ensure minimum standards) universities in the UK such as Chester. It cover one year of fees at Oxford but not leave you much to live on. I am pretty sure there are cheaper options in Europe.
Of course, someone from a low income nation is most likely to go to university in their own country which is a whole lot cheaper (and a lot of low and middle income countries have free or subsidised university education - which is why British hospitals were historically had lots of South Asian doctors, and now Africans). If their own country does not offer the right degree or demand for limited places is very high they can study in another low or middle income country (I know Sri Lankans who have studied in India).
This is utter bullshit. An American CS degree might cost that much, but why would someone from a developing country (who isn't rich or getting a scholarship) want one of those?
The actual cost of a CS degree varies a lot depending on the country, but here in Vietnam I think it's about $1000 per term at public universities. That's not cheap, it's about a year at minimum wage here. But it's a long, long way from your claim of 124 years.
And to forestall the obvious next claim: Vietnamese education is quite good actually. Maybe you won't be going to Harvard but there's plenty of universities in the top 1000 worldwide with a few in the top 200 (no idea for the ranking for CS specifically though).
I don't think it's got anything to do with ChatGPT, especially given that it has a generous free tier too, let alone a about much cheaper (than the pro) plus tier.
It's an international economy problem, not an AI problem.
This has the to be the dumbest blog and argumentation i've read the whole year... Corporations aren't charities. A ChatGPT Pro subscription isn't necessary for human survival in those countries. A ChatGPT Pro subscription isn't necessary for basic human needs.
Regrettable, but did it take o3 mega pro to find out about real and nominal value? Even something a trivial as an iPhone is a far bigger purchase if you're not on a Bay Area salary.
Home computers were ridiculously expensive in their initial years. Some could cost more than a car. ChatGPT Pro gives you access to cutting edge technology so it isn't surprising that it's expensive.
Just remember that a Wal Mart $50 phone is faster than a supercomputer from the 70s/80s. Prices will go down.
Readit News
Why? I don't see a practical argument for why Google would want to offer this service at a massive loss.
Not everything can be reasonably available to everyone if it is cost prohibitive.
Money don't grow on the trees. Someone has to work or take debt. The question is should rich countries sponsor poor? Probably yes. How much? Trump decided enough is enough. EU want US to keep sponsoring the war. You know, they want it to continue but don't want to pay for it. So they try to hijack US government again by attacking Trump personally.
Immigration can be solved by border control. That's what dems fought so hard against trying to get more voters in. Another reason: they control food distribution.
Normally software has a near 0 marginal cost. This allows sellers to offer steap discounts because they cost the seller almost nothing. In many cases, sellers are better off having you use their software without paying instead of not using it; because they are out almost no money, but have increased their odds of a future sale
High end LLMs are different. Sellers are not setting their price to maximize revenue. They are setting their price to cover the marginal cost of providing the service plus margin.
Lowering their price is not a matter of price discrimination. It is a matter of engineering a cheeper product.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
² Nor do they cost the same everywhere.
³ In the sense that it’s not a subscription. I get that in the US you may be paying for student loans for an unreasonably long time, but that’s not normal for the rest of the world.
Of course, someone from a low income nation is most likely to go to university in their own country which is a whole lot cheaper (and a lot of low and middle income countries have free or subsidised university education - which is why British hospitals were historically had lots of South Asian doctors, and now Africans). If their own country does not offer the right degree or demand for limited places is very high they can study in another low or middle income country (I know Sri Lankans who have studied in India).
You can't compare the cost of a degree in the US with how much that person would pay in their country (even for a top uni there)
And even if you literally compare US costs, that person would probably be eligible to scholarships etc (if they manage to be selected, of course)
The actual cost of a CS degree varies a lot depending on the country, but here in Vietnam I think it's about $1000 per term at public universities. That's not cheap, it's about a year at minimum wage here. But it's a long, long way from your claim of 124 years.
And to forestall the obvious next claim: Vietnamese education is quite good actually. Maybe you won't be going to Harvard but there's plenty of universities in the top 1000 worldwide with a few in the top 200 (no idea for the ranking for CS specifically though).
£9,535/year * 3 year degree / 124 years ~= £231/year ~= 310 USD/year
UN estimates GDP/capita of Yemen and Burundi were less than this, that Tajikistan has lower gross average monthly wages. Those are nominal, not PPP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...
The World Bank numbers here are adjusted for cost of living, say that 1.31% of the world population are living on a dollar a day: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/poverty-explorer?tab=li...
It's an international economy problem, not an AI problem.
Deleted Comment
So? Perhaps they should be.
Just remember that a Wal Mart $50 phone is faster than a supercomputer from the 70s/80s. Prices will go down.