THE MATRIX SKIN
THE MATRIX SKIN
4020 Gilbert #106 Dallas - moved into apartment after High School
2510 N. 175 BOX 910 Seagoville - Moved here when we got married
921 Sangranada Irving - moved here to be closer to Mom and Dad but it flooded
906 Olde Towne Irving - moved into the house after the flood
San Diego AI Chat (here)
I never knew the Stices had a daughter. I think she stayed inside away from the Dhonaus.
With the 10 Dhonau kids, at night the corner looked like a rodeo at Woodstock and was a popular destination of teens out cruising.
3630 Windsor and Herb Stice Chat (here)
AI agent hallucinated Herb's daughter. See the AI Chat (here)
I asked AI if "he" hoped to be a real boy some day (here)
Anthropic $42 billion loss in 2025, $500 million profit in 2026?
Open AI $22 billion loss in 2026
Somebody said, "we lose money on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume"
"we lose money on every AI Querry, but we'll make it up in volume"
AI pricing is .... "primarily based on a token-per-unit model, charging separately for input (prompt) and output (response) tokens, usually measured per 1,000 or 1 million tokens. Output tokens are typically 2–3x more expensive than input tokens because generating new content requires higher computational power".....
Example of OpenAI pricing (here)
The CEOs themselves don’t appear to be getting a whole lot out of using AI tools. While two-thirds said they personally used AI, their average use amounted to only 1.5 hours a week, the survey found — less time than most people spend doomscrolling on their phones in a single day. That’s striking, considering that execs tend to be far more enthusiastic about the tech compared to their underlings. Another recent survey, for example, found that 40 percent of rank-and-file white collar workers thought AI didn’t save them any time at work, while 98 percent of their bosses did.
These latest findings will continue to raise questions about AI’s economic impact, and in its promise to supercharge productivity in the workplace. In another recent survey, more than half of nearly 4,500 CEOs said their companies weren’t seeing a financial return from investing in AI. A notable MIT study rang alarm bells across the industry after findings that 95 percent of companies that incorporated AI experiencing no meaningful growth in revenue.
Why this is the case isn’t much of a mystery. Studies have found that AIs fail at completing remote work and other white collar tasks, and slow down rather than speed up human programmers because they frequently slip errors into their code. Meanwhile, a fresher avenue of research exploring AI’s effect on the workforce using it is already producing damning insights. The tech may actually be intensifying work and accelerating burn-out, one report found, and it’s also leading to employees producing low-quality “workslop” that their co-workers are forced to fix, bogging down workflows and leading to resentment, another found — leading the researchers to opine that its “most alarming cost may be interpersonal.”
Perhaps what AI brings to the table is tough to quantify from an economic standpoint. Decades ago, the Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow correctly predicted that the advent of information technology wouldn’t lead to a measurable surge in productivity, and instead would lead to a slow in productivity growth. The phenomenon is now called the Solow paradox: though computers were obviously transformative, they didn’t immediately translate to economic gains.
