Even if it was just for fun, $12,000 a year for a hobby is not cost prohibitive for a lot of people.

If you claim it as a business/work expense (In Australia, that gives you a 47% discount), 1K is not even one day's salary for a well-paid dev and just about one day for an average paid dev.

Well, I run a number of apps that have users who appreciate them (I hope?) and they simply wouldn't exist without AI giving me the leverage to build them. So.. yes? What's a "return", anyway? It's worth it to me, obviously!

But you might have hit the nail on the head - yes, it's extremely fun and maybe that's the main reason after all. And FYI many, many people pay a lot more than $1k/m for video games.

I absolutely can imagine a video game doing that, especially if there were some way to make the consumption be conspicuous.

In Tan's case, I think the "fun" thing is the right way to look at it. He gets to play at being a big shot developer and show off on Twitter, so clearly he feels he's getting some value from his spending even if no-one else does.

There is a more serious question about to what degree the AI vendors have a duty of care to prevent addicts from getting themselves into financial trouble - perhaps they might in future face the sort of regulation applied to high street bookmakers. I doubt Tan would fail any putative affordability test, though, so it would still be up to him to seek help for his problem if he feels its getting out of control.

Very clever - your comment is a description of itself