Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 428 posts

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#221

Post by parineum »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #170
parineum wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>infinite number of options between two outcomes so the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor that the truth lies somewhere in between This is totally fallacious.

It isn't.

"AI is a bubble" and "AI is going to replace all human jobs" is, essentially, the two extremes I'm seeing. AI replacing some jobs (even if partially) and the bubble-ness of the boom are both things that exist on a line between two points. Both can be partially true and exist anywhere on the line between true and false.

No jobs replacedAll jobs replaced

Bubble crashes the economy and we all end up dead in a ditch from famineWe all end up super rich in the post scarcity economy

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#222

Post by Joel_Mckay »

anonymousiam wrote: post #153
randomNumber7 wrote: post #145

Earlier 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.

Silicon valley capital investment firms have always exploited regulatory capture to "compete". The public simply has a ridiculously short memory of the losers pushed out of the market during the loss-leader to exploit transition phase.

Currently, the trend is not whether one technology will outpace the other in the "AI" hype-cycle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle ), but it does create perceived asymmetry with skilled-labor pools. That alone is valuable leverage to a corporation, and people are getting fired or ripped off anticipating the rise of real "AI".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0

One day real "AI" may exist, but a LLM or current reasoning model is unlikely going to make that happen. It is absolutely hilarious there is a cult-like devotion to the AstroTurf marketing.

The question is never whether this is right or wrong... but simply how one may personally capture revenue before the Trough of disillusionment. =3

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#223

Post by Iulioh »

lokar wrote: post #193
guywithahat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very few industries are “deeply profitable” absent the illegal abuse of monopoly power

And as we saw, once a model is trained you need very little compute to run it and there is very little advantage in begin the 1st model and the 10th model.

Monopoly in this field is impossible, your product won't ever be so good that the competition does not make sense

Add to this that AGI is impossible with LLMs...

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#224

Post by lokar »

potato3732842 wrote: post #210
lokar wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few industries are “deeply profitable” absent the illegal abuse of monopoly power

Don't forget the perfectly legal use of legislation and bureaucratic precedent that gives them "soft/lossy monopoly" power or all but forces people do to business with them.

OpenAI is pretty clearly pushing for complex government regulation as a way to protect their lead and prevent new entrants in the market.

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#226

Post by whimsicalism »

orochimaaru wrote: post #70
jacquesm wrote: post #17

These 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.

Gita Gopinath (imf’s economist) sounded the alarm on the scale of this - https://www.afr.com/wealth/investing/the-crash-that-could-to...

Stopped clock…

2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpiZ0DkHeGE 2019: https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=1732...

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#227

Post by bobxmax »

orochimaaru wrote: post #70
jacquesm wrote: post #17

These 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.

Gita Gopinath (imf’s economist) sounded the alarm on the scale of this - https://www.afr.com/wealth/investing/the-crash-that-could-to...

[dead]

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#228

Post by whimsicalism »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #189

>> figure out how to innovate on the financial model Does it feel rather Orwellian that the original geeks now seem to be the same people who - forget about claiming technological innovation of as their own - completely discount it and apparently the important thing is now the creativity in funding an enterprise? We don't hear about the breakthroughs from the technologists, but the funding announcements from th inves…

this is all a function of the media reporting, the change in ‘nerd culture’ has been vastly overreported.

these companies are staffed by spectrum-y nerds that we are being desperately propagandized into thinking are actually frat ‘bros’.

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#229

Post by random9749832 »

raincole wrote: post #181
guywithahat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And did people listen to those "analyses" and dump Tesla, or its stock kept skyrocketing?

Tesla is a meme stock.

Re: How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

#230

Post by parineum »

gitremote wrote: post #211
parineum wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Flat-earthers: The earth is flat. Round-earthers: The earth is round. "Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.

"Round" does not mean spherical and both of these claims are falsifiable and mutually exclusive.

The AI situation doesn't not have two mutually exclusive claims, it has two claims on the opposite sides of economic and cultural impact that are differences of magnitude and direction.

AI can both be a bubble and revolutionary, just like the internet.

Post reply on HN