I'm not going to read the whole paper, but I didn't find anything in the paper which used the words "overhyped" "wildly expensive," or "unreliable."
Unreliable for what? There's so many different ways which people use these services. The way I use them, it's not unreliable. Because I don't use these services in a way which would be unreliable.
Instead, it seems the broader conversation that the huge investment in AI might not pay off right away is very plausible. I pay $20 per month for one of these services. And that $20 service is maybe the most expensive to implement of anything I have paid $20 monthly by a long shot.
And this is important for the audience of Goldman Sachs. Maybe it's not so important for the typical reader of Hacker News. Who reads Goldman Sachs papers?
Unreliable for what? There's so many different ways which people use these services. The way I use them, it's not unreliable. Because I don't use these services in a way which would be unreliable.
Instead, it seems the broader conversation that the huge investment in AI might not pay off right away is very plausible. I pay $20 per month for one of these services. And that $20 service is maybe the most expensive to implement of anything I have paid $20 monthly by a long shot.
And this is important for the audience of Goldman Sachs. Maybe it's not so important for the typical reader of Hacker News. Who reads Goldman Sachs papers?