21–30 of 803 posts
I think this is actually a signal that the AI hype is dissipating. These numbers and the valuation are indicative that people consider this a potentially valuable tool, but not world changing and disruptive. I think this is a pretty reasonable take.
Getting funded by a16z is if anything a sign that the field is not hot anymore.
All money is green, regardless of level of sophistication. If you’re using investment firm pedigree as signal, gonna have a bad time. They’re all just throwin’ darts under the guise of skill (actor/observer|outcome bias; when you win, it is skill; when you lose, it was luck, broadly speaking). > Indeed, one should be sophisticated themselves when negotiating investment to not be unduly encumbered by the unsophisticat…
True, but most, if not all, money comes with strings attached.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All money is green, regardless of level of sophistication. If you’re using investment firm pedigree as signal, gonna have a bad time. They’re all just throwin’ darts under the guise of skill (actor/observer|outcome bias; when you win, it is skill; when you lose, it was luck, broadly speaking). > Indeed, one should be sophisticated themselves when negotiating investment to not be unduly encumbered by the unsophisticat…
> All money is green, regardless of level of sophistication. True, but most, if not all, money comes with strings attached.
I think this is actually a signal that the AI hype is dissipating. These numbers and the valuation are indicative that people consider this a potentially valuable tool, but not world changing and disruptive. I think this is a pretty reasonable take.
$1B raise, $5B valuation. For a company that is a couple months old and doesn't have a product or even a single line of code in production. Wild.
In this case, everyone knows it takes hundreds of millions to train models. So I'm investors are essentially rolling the dice on an extremely well-regarded team. And if it takes about a billion just to get off the ground, the valuation would need to at least be in the couple billion range to make it worth it for employees to work there.
That feels very different than say selling a company where founders are cashing out. In that case, the business should expect to meaningful contribute to revenue, and quickly.
Same funding as OpenAI when they started, but SSI explicitly declared their intention not to release a single product until superintelligence is reached. Closest thing we have to a Manhattan Project in the modern era?
Minus the urgency, scientific process, well-defined goals, target dates, public ownership, accountability...
Given OpenAI’s declining performance after his being sidelined and then departing, interested to see what they do. Should be a clear demonstration of who was really driving innovation there.
Given OpenAI’s declining performance after his being sidelined and then departing, interested to see what they do. Should be a clear demonstration of who was really driving innovation there.
This has to be one of the quickest valuations past a billion. I wonder if they can even effectively make use of the funds in a reasonable enough timeline.
I read that it cost Google ~$190 million to train Gemini, not even including staff salaries. So feels like a billion gives you about 3 "from scratch" comparable training runs.
This has to be one of the quickest valuations past a billion. I wonder if they can even effectively make use of the funds in a reasonable enough timeline.