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

Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 345 posts

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#241

Post by thimabi »

Eufrat wrote: post #194
charcircuit wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is ton of utility. I use it all the time to study, to look up what's happening in the world, to understand the context behind what others are saying, cooking recipes, and much more. Considering LLMs have access to tools for searching the internet they have a superset of the capabilities of Google and consumers got a lot of value from Google. In fact from putting ads on the search results Google has made billion…

When you ask it to give you a digest of current events or as a study aid how are you ensuring that what your reading is a valid representation of the source material? Has it never given you false information?

Not OP but, anyway, AI output should be treated like any other source material.

I study from reputable sources every day and never cease to be amazed by how many errors or misconceptions they have. Peer-reviewed articles, books from renowned scholars, news from major publications… regardless of the source, false information and contradictions accumulate. I’d wager that AI, besides helping me uncover these issues in the literature, has had a lower error rate than most of the materials that I read on a daily basis.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#242

Post by bleepblap »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #233
bleepblap wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI compute hardware is not a commodity. And in a shortage, commodities can command high margins. I don't see the distinction you're drawing about "commodity", but I'm happy to be wrong on that. My point was that spaceX's ai division is buying all their inputs from external vendors and can't meaningfully differentiate themselves from person Y who buys all the same hardware except for the fact they bought them first.…

> don't see the distinction you're drawing about "commodity" People pay markedly more for NVIDIA GPUs than they do for others. That opposes the fungibility requirement of a commodity.

In the west, there's no actual competitor to NVIDIA hardware. Yes, people make other chips, but nothing is a serious drop-in replacement for the nv stack. Between the networking and software, they're truly a different "thing" of accelerator, and I don't consider them fungible at all. The US government tried to build 3 supercomputers with each of nvidia/amd/intel accelerators and you can see how it went

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#243

Post by boringg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #222
wyager wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has completely dropped the ball on every single detail of AI rollout for the last 5 years - why do you think they will suddenly stop now? My prior is that the new siri stuff is just as vaporware as the previous "apple intelligence" rollout

> Apple has completely dropped the ball Apple has sat out a capital-allocation shitshow. Its investors and likely customers are better off for their patience.

Jury is out on that one -- will have to see what happens in the next couple of years. I don't think you can say better off with full confidence right now. Very possible you could say that in the future..

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#244

Post by applfanboysbgon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #217
paustint wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic get fast tracked to be on NASDAQ or S&P 500 then they are required to be included in index funds which will be automatically included in retirement accounts and that will give investors an exit. https://youtu.be/yhRjvX_t4hc?si=N-a-s_5ttWKfVeJZ

> If SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic get fast tracked to be on NASDAQ or S&P 500 S&P 500 said no. NASDAQ 100 is a tiny tech index. The retirement conspiracy could have been a thing, and its effect isn't zero, but oh my god was it overblown by the influencer crowd.

"Nothing happened on Y2K, everyone was overreacting"

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#245

Post by JumpCrisscross »

siren2026 wrote: post #237
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> couple people at OpenAI and Anthropic that are very clearly selling everything they can as soon as they can If you are serious about this for Anthropic please drop me a line. (Not OpenAI.) > never before had we 3 mega IPOs happening at almost the exact same time Uber (May 2019), Airbnb (December 2020) and WeWork (scheduled 2019, SPAC 2021) were pretty closely bunched. And they were big for their time. Keep in mind…

> Source? There is an actual ETF tracking IPOs: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IPO/

> There is an actual ETF tracking IPOs

Renaissance's IPO index seeks to "capture the essence of IPO activity and performance of newly public companies" [1]. It does not replicate an actual IPO investor's returns.

For example, it adds new issues approximately quarterly and never earlier than 5 days from IPO. This is important since it misses the pop. Mean (median) first-day returns on IPOs are 20% (7%) [2]. The average 3-year buy-and-hold return for all IPO investors 1980 to 2025 was 19.1%. Less than broad-market indices (though that margin shrinks for $1bn+ sales IPOs). But certainly not negative.

(Uber and Airbnb reflect this trend. Up since IPO. But, as you observe, below the S&P 500's returns even before taking into account total returns.)

[1] https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/document...

[2] https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/files/IPO-Statistics.... 1980 to 2025; 30% (14%) for 2025

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#246

Post by JumpCrisscross »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #244
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic get fast tracked to be on NASDAQ or S&P 500 S&P 500 said no. NASDAQ 100 is a tiny tech index. The retirement conspiracy could have been a thing, and its effect isn't zero, but oh my god was it overblown by the influencer crowd.

"Nothing happened on Y2K, everyone was overreacting"

The notion that S&P's committee took online chatter into account is silly beyond explanation. If anything, S&P management would have put their fingers on the scale to include these new issues.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#247

Post by cmiles8 »

Unless the picture and trajectory changes dramatically I don’t see OpenAI managing to pull off a successful IPO. If they do manage to go public it will likely only be at a fraction of what they’re worth now, with existing investors rushing for the exits to avoid completely losing their shirts.

The revenue trajectory is now anemic, no clear sign of stopping the cash burn anytime soon, and all the liability associated with all things Sam Altman at this point. Frankly it’s a mess.

In Warren Buffet’s Cinderella party scenario it’s 11:59 at the party and someone just found an accurate clock.

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#248

Post by JumpCrisscross »

siren2026 wrote: post #235
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fact those funds will buy based on the market cap and not the float makes it a completely irresponsible investment at this point It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices. There is a theoretical argument for float weighting, inasmuch as if you bought the stock market you'd be buying the…

> It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices. No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices. This is probably going to happen with those IPOs. It's pure offer and demand! To put it differently: Imagine a comp…

> No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices

Correct.

> this is probably going to happen with those IPOs

Not due to any index-following investor.

> SP500 can decide absolutely whatever they want

Yup, S&P 500 is a committee-based index.

> one of those instances in which they changed the rules in a way that made no clear sense and they will be remembered for that

S&P never changed the S&P 500's rules.

NASDAQ 100 did. But from what I can tell, that was a brilliant piece of marketing. Nobody talked about them before. (QQQQ doesn't appear to have gained or lost net assets in that time, which isn't unexpected, it's a volatile fund.)

Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

#249

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bleepblap wrote: post #242
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't see the distinction you're drawing about "commodity" People pay markedly more for NVIDIA GPUs than they do for others. That opposes the fungibility requirement of a commodity.

In the west, there's no actual competitor to NVIDIA hardware. Yes, people make other chips, but nothing is a serious drop-in replacement for the nv stack. Between the networking and software, they're truly a different "thing" of accelerator, and I don't consider them fungible at all. The US government tried to build 3 supercomputers with each of nvidia/amd/intel accelerators and you can see how it went

> there's no actual competitor to NVIDIA hardware...I don't consider them fungible at all

Which is why nobody should claim NVIDIA makes a commodity.

Post reply on HN