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

121–130 of 345 posts

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

#121

Post by alextheparrot »

alpinisme wrote: post #46
ghshephard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/18/how-openai-board-is-structu... for the OpenAI Structure. 1) In order to fund research - this stuff costs 10s of billions of dollars - everyone, from Ilya, to Elon, to Sam - all agreed that they would require a profit-arm to raise money. Nobody was going to sponsor that 10s of billions of dollars to a non-profit. 2) The non profit is still there - and controls the commercial eleme…

“Controls” That will be especially untrue after IPO when shareholders can claim there are fiduciary responsibilities that conflict with the non profit goals.

The for-profit is a PBC with the sane mission at the nonprofit [0]

[0] https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone/

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

#122

Post by thallavajhula »

jorblumesea wrote: post #83
thallavajhula wrote: post #64

Elon is not going to be happy about this. He's been vocal about his dislike towards the business model OpenAI chose to run with.

that's not the issue, Elon is just a petulant child that is losing the ai game ever since he left OAI. Elon wanted full control, and that dispute over control is the central issue. Elon is 100% a for profit person, it's just a 10 year rivalry between Sam and Elon.

And to top that, he lost the battle in the court recently.

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

#123

Post by JumpCrisscross »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal I understand the scepticism around Google's deal with SpaceX, given the former holds a stake in the latter. But Anthropic buying SpaceX's compute doesn't have any related-party smell to it. That genuinely looks like SpaceX having cornered some valuable compute.

> That genuinely looks like SpaceX having cornered some valuable compute. That's nice way to say "invested in AI that turned out to be flop nobody wants to pay for so they are selling spare capacity"

> That's nice way to say "invested in AI that turned out to be flop nobody wants to pay for so they are selling spare capacity"

Both takes are true. xAI invested in capacity that was supposed to yield frontier-model-maker margins. Grok failed to generate enough interest. So now they're selling it.

That's absolutely a good business, in a way that's more certain than the frontier-model one. But it's also lower margin, which doesn't support the sort of valuation SpaceX is going for.

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

#124

Post by LearnYouALisp »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99
krona wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually talking about both. WSJ publishes Anthropic artificial profitability. Days later the reason for the profitability appears in SpaceX S-1; it's compute costs were artificially suppressed. Both are going public. It's a quid pro quo.

> It's a quid pro quo This is a reasonable accusation! It doesn't make a lot of sense–the Journal article is worth a hell of lot more than SpaceX referencing Anthropic's profitability. And we have zero evidence for it–one could raise this accusation against any compute partner Anthropic were to buy from.

Reasonable or *un*reasonable?

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

#126

Post by SecretDreams »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94
SecretDreams wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google owns 14% Anthropic and 6% xAI. When Anthropic spends on xAI, it benefits Google. When google spends on xAI, it benefits Google. When xAI spends on Google, believe it or not, that benefits Google. This is how a Ponzi -style circular financing scheme typically works.

> When Anthropic spends on xAI, it benefits Google Unless Google is directing these transactions, this is not a novel issue. (We see a similar effect with mutual funds owning most companies [1]. It's a weak effect.) > This is how a Ponzi -style circular financing scheme typically works No. It's potential conflicts of interest. It's not circular financing. Circular financing follows the cash. When NVIDIA invests in Op…

I think it depends on how you view the payout google will get when these companies IPO and give Google exist liquidity and a nicer looking balance sheet, if needed, either or.

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

#127

Post by JumpCrisscross »

LearnYouALisp wrote: post #124
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a quid pro quo This is a reasonable accusation! It doesn't make a lot of sense–the Journal article is worth a hell of lot more than SpaceX referencing Anthropic's profitability. And we have zero evidence for it–one could raise this accusation against any compute partner Anthropic were to buy from.

Reasonable or *un*reasonable?

> Reasonable or unreasonable?

Reasonable. The influencers who just learned the term circular financing are mostly idiots. The ones pointing out the conflict of interest with Google are technically correct, but the conspiracy takes so many moving parts to yield such little gain that it would have to be particularly stupid in vision yet competent in execution to pull off.

But asking if there is a quid pro quo between Anthropic and SpaceX? Like, there could be. We have no evidence of it. The S-1 mention doesn't make any sense. But they're both going public and if I were a journalist I'd look into it.

The base case, that there is commercial value to xAI's datacenters that folks in the frontier-model space are competing to get access to, does seem to be one folks here are actively rejecting.

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

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SecretDreams wrote: post #126
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Anthropic spends on xAI, it benefits Google Unless Google is directing these transactions, this is not a novel issue. (We see a similar effect with mutual funds owning most companies [1]. It's a weak effect.) > This is how a Ponzi -style circular financing scheme typically works No. It's potential conflicts of interest. It's not circular financing. Circular financing follows the cash. When NVIDIA invests in Op…

I think it depends on how you view the payout google will get when these companies IPO and give Google exist liquidity and a nicer looking balance sheet, if needed, either or.

> it depends on how you view the payout google will get when these companies IPO and give Google exist liquidity and a nicer looking balance sheet

Google has a fantastic balance sheet with or without these investments. None of the recent deals have uniquely enabled an IPO. So they'd be playing to increase their stakes' value by a few points ahead of a dump, a dump that would almost certainly wipe out much more than they'd stand to gain by trying to make someone else a dollar so they get nickels and dimes out of it.

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

#129

Post by dakolli »

stingraycharles wrote: post #116
zuzululu wrote: post #112

so who is buying at the open? anthropic, spacex, openai i think that we are going to see another leg up but this is gonna be it for a while

From what I understand, SpaceX has been engineered such that all kinds of passive investment funds (pension funds, ETFs) will buy into it at their first rebalancing, and as such it should get a decent amount of volume after open. Having said that, it’s the company I have least faith in due to the recent acquisition of xAI / Twitter.

[flagged]

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

#130

Post by JumpCrisscross »

stingraycharles wrote: post #116
zuzululu wrote: post #112

so who is buying at the open? anthropic, spacex, openai i think that we are going to see another leg up but this is gonna be it for a while

From what I understand, SpaceX has been engineered such that all kinds of passive investment funds (pension funds, ETFs) will buy into it at their first rebalancing, and as such it should get a decent amount of volume after open. Having said that, it’s the company I have least faith in due to the recent acquisition of xAI / Twitter.

> SpaceX has been engineered such that all kinds of passive investment funds (pension funds, ETFs) will buy into it

Pension funds are rarely passively run. They tend to be sophisticated investors. For example, several pension funds are already investors in SpaceX.

NASDAQ 100 will include SpaceX after a couple weeks. But it's a tech fund. It's strange to complain about buying the largest tech company in a tech fund. Similarly, S&P total market and Russell total market will buy early. But again, those are total-market funds. If you want to actively manage your portfolio, don't buy total-market funds.

Post reply on HN