Earlier quoted context omitted.
These deals happen all the time. The case for a bubble is the following. When Microsoft offers cloud-credits in exchange for openai equity, what it has effectively done is to purchase its own azure revenues. ie, a company uses its own cash to purchase its own revenues. This produces an illusion of revenue growth which is not economically sustainable. This is happening for all clouds right now wherein their revenues a…
But nobody is falling for the "illusion of revenue growth". This is out in the open. This isn't a scam. Investors know this and are pricing accordingly. They see the revenue growth but also see the decrease in cash. What Microsoft is actually doing is taking the large profits it would have otherwise made on its cloud compute with retail customers, losing much/all of those profits as it sells the compute more cheaply…
How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
161–170 of 428 posts
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology But we know that growth in the models is not exponential, its much closer to logarithmic. So they spend =equity to get >results. The ad spend was a merry go round, this is a flywheel where the turning grinds its gears until its a smooth burr. The math of the rising stock prices only begins to make sense if there is a possi…
OpenAI invests heavily into integration with other products. If model development stalls they just need to be not worse than other stalled models while taking advantage of brand recognition and momentum to stay ahead in other areas. In that sense it makes sense to keep spending billions even f model development is nearing diminishing return - it forces competition to do the same and in that game victory belongs to th…
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is something about an argument made almost entirely out of metaphors that amuses me to the point of not being able to take it seriously, even if I actually agree with it.
As much as I dislike metaphors, this sounded reasonable to me. Just don't go poking holes in the metaphor instead of the real argument.
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
The winner takes it all, so it is reasonable to bet big to be the one.
The one what? What is the secret sauce that will distinguish one LLM from another? Is it patentable? What's going to prevent all of the free LLMs from winning the prize? An AI crash seems inevitable.
They want to be the Google in this scenario.
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#165These kinds of deals were very much a la mode just prior to the .com crash. Companies would buy advertising, then the websites and ad agencies would buy their services and they'd spend it again on advertising. The end result is immense revenues without profits.
There’s one key difference in my opinion: pre-.com deals were buying revenue with equity and nothing else. It was growth for growth’s sake. All that scale delivered mostly nothing. OpenAI applies the same strategy, but they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology. It’s circular, but more like a flywheel and less like a merry-go-round. I have some faith it could go anot…
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#166These kinds of deals were very much a la mode just prior to the .com crash. Companies would buy advertising, then the websites and ad agencies would buy their services and they'd spend it again on advertising. The end result is immense revenues without profits.
There’s one key difference in my opinion: pre-.com deals were buying revenue with equity and nothing else. It was growth for growth’s sake. All that scale delivered mostly nothing. OpenAI applies the same strategy, but they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology. It’s circular, but more like a flywheel and less like a merry-go-round. I have some faith it could go anot…
I wonder how they felt during the .com era.
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#167These kinds of deals were very much a la mode just prior to the .com crash. Companies would buy advertising, then the websites and ad agencies would buy their services and they'd spend it again on advertising. The end result is immense revenues without profits.
There’s one key difference in my opinion: pre-.com deals were buying revenue with equity and nothing else. It was growth for growth’s sake. All that scale delivered mostly nothing. OpenAI applies the same strategy, but they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology. It’s circular, but more like a flywheel and less like a merry-go-round. I have some faith it could go anot…
https://time.com/archive/6931645/how-the-once-luminous-lucen...
The customers bought real equipment that was claimed to be required for the "exponential growth" of the Internet. It is very much like building data centers.
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#168These kinds of deals were very much a la mode just prior to the .com crash. Companies would buy advertising, then the websites and ad agencies would buy their services and they'd spend it again on advertising. The end result is immense revenues without profits.
There’s one key difference in my opinion: pre-.com deals were buying revenue with equity and nothing else. It was growth for growth’s sake. All that scale delivered mostly nothing. OpenAI applies the same strategy, but they’re using their equity to buy compute that is critical to improving their core technology. It’s circular, but more like a flywheel and less like a merry-go-round. I have some faith it could go anot…
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#169Related https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/29/microsoft_earnings_q1... Microsoft seemingly just revealed that OpenAI lost $11.5B last quarter
It's incredible how Tesla used to lose a few hundred million a year and analysis shows would freak out claiming they'd never be profitable. Now Rivian can lose 5 billion a year and I don't hear anything about it, and OpenAI can lose 11 billion in a quarter and Microsoft still backs them. I do think this is going to be a deeply profitable industry, but this feels a little like the WeWork CEO flying couches to offices…
For Microsoft, and the other hyperscalers supporting OpenAI, they're all absolutely dependent on OpenAI's success. They can realistically survive through the difficult times, if the bubble bursts because of a minor player - for example if Coreweave or Mistral shuts down. But if the bubble bursts because the most visible symbol of AI's future collapses, the value-destruction for Microsoft's shareholders will be 100x larger than OpenAI's quarterly losses. The question for Microsoft is literally as fundamental as "do we want to wipe $1tn off our market cap, or eat $11bn losses per quarter for a few years?" and the answer is pretty straightforward.
Altman has played an absolute blinder by making the success of his company a near-existential issue for several of the largest companies to have ever existed.
Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Reality lies in the middle The argument to moderation/middle ground fallacy is a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Not really. The idea that reality lies _in_ the middle is fairly coherent. It's not, on it's face, absolutely true but there are and infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between. Is either side totally right about every single point of contention between them? Probably not, so the answer is likely in the middle. The fallacy is a l…
This is totally fallacious.