231–240 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have also never seen a Threads link. For all the hatred of X, people do actually use it.
75% of Twitter users are bots now, some I'm sure are real people.
There may be a lot of bots in the comments but the platform is genuinely used by a lot of people, that’s just easily observable.
Given their current product offerings, I really don't see a way they could ever justify a $300B valuation unless they get everyone on the planet to subscribe to their $200/month plan. I'm calling it now: investors are gonna get burned hard on this one. Cause right now all they have is "well we are working on superintelligence" and to that I say "great, then what?". Even if they do make that breakthrough I don't see h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI valued at 300B will never be able to produce the same products "wrappers" that these 5 people startups are making. Same reason Facebook could not make Instagram, of Jira could never make bootcamp for example.
Counterexample- Facebook made Threads which has similar # users as Twitter now.
Given their current product offerings, I really don't see a way they could ever justify a $300B valuation unless they get everyone on the planet to subscribe to their $200/month plan. I'm calling it now: investors are gonna get burned hard on this one. Cause right now all they have is "well we are working on superintelligence" and to that I say "great, then what?". Even if they do make that breakthrough I don't see h…
The superintelligence breakthrough..? I don't think you realize what that word means. Every single white collar job could be automated immediately with a worker better than any human. Yes, superintelligence sounds fantastical because it is. Try to have some imagination. It's worth far more than 300 billion. Whether they'll get there or not is the valuation question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super intelligence doesn't make it real it just knows how. You can't type "bring me a moon rock" to it.
You obviously don't work with the people I work with. They're a lot more convinced that OP's version of reality is coming than yours. Convinced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super intelligence doesn't make it real it just knows how. You can't type "bring me a moon rock" to it.
You obviously don't work with the people I work with. They're a lot more convinced that OP's version of reality is coming than yours. Convinced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> make on average This completely misses the boat on venture capital, which is almost by definition the riskiest of all risky bets. Any smart LP throwing $X into a fund has a portfolio valued, at the very least, at 100 if not 1000 times X. It is simply the way to expose the high-risk portion of the portfolio to that level of risk at the size of the investment needed. Being high-risk, probably it will return nothing.…
It is the average that matters in the end. How much new money flows into VC per year? Some number of $1e9 - hundreds perhaps? What happens to it? If its all a folly and the money is burnt, it cannot last. But otherwise, these VCs investing at what looks like crazy valuations can't all be idiots.
> it cannot last
It cannot last because VC managing partners are human and are subject to human frailties, greed and pride among them. If most actively traded funds cannot succeed at producing sustained above-market returns over time (i.e. making active stock market picks, compared to index funds), then what else other than hubris could suggest an ability to pick unproven startups, sustainably, over time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and they have a monopoly on the ad market. Whereas a SOTA LLM can be used to bootstrap an almost-as-good LLM. The gap is shrinking between SOTA models and there's now fierce competition. Moreover, ads are a very high ROI business. The profit margins on SOTA LLM offerings are razor thin or negative.
> they have a monopoly on the ad market Only if you look narrowly at search ads, but really they compete with Meta, Tiktok and X for ad spend. And the quality of the LLMs is beside the point, just like search engine quality. ChatGPT has a near monopoly on 'AI' mindshare, with the general public.
Just because search engine quality is now quite low across the board (except perhaps Kagi) doesn’t mean that search engine quality was not once the determining factor to success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, the $200/m plan is at a loss, they'll make a profit on PAYG tokens, not plans. Secondly, this is looking very risky: they are at the bottom of the value chain and eventually they'll be running on razor thin margins like all actors who are at the bottom of the value chain. Anything they can offer is doable by their competitors (in Google's case, they can even do it cheaper due to ow ing the vertical which Ope…
I think you are correct, but my hot take is that they will capture most of the G7 through scummy regulatory capture and bundling with Microsoft. They will use this to mostly dominate the markets and run at small profitable margins. They will then pad out revenue by bundling in advertisement and agenda based pay to play messaging. They will also do a bunch of military and government contracts, take positions in profit…