Live data from Hacker News

Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC

openai.com

151–160 of 345 posts

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

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

What I don't understand is how it's even a good low-margin business. Maybe I'm missing something but:

Data centers (before recently) are low margin businesses because all the inputs are commodities: you buy power (joules), power (PDU), cooling hardware, physical racks, etc.. from the same vendors as everyone else. Worse, your biggest potential clients have the scale to just build it on their own and cut you out because of their scale and because you don't bring anything unique (outside of maybe physical proximity to an interesting market)

xAI has all the same commodity inputs plus another huge upfront capital expense (GPU/storage/networking), and their customer base is exclusively the well-funded companies who would normally just build it on their own.

I assume that they can't get better deals from nvidia than (e.g.) Microsoft because of their scale, so the unit cost of their inputs is the same or worse than their clients.

So the whole game is hoping that they hope to charge more now because people can't build fast enough and try to recoup their upfront costs before either a) other capacity comes online and b) the installed hardware becomes obsolete.

I'm being earnest -- it seems like they're trading one tiny margin service (datacenter) for another tiny margin service, with the added difficulty that there's an additional 10 figures of upfront expenditures and their viability depends solely on paying everything off before the price floor drops. Maybe it's staunching the bleeding, but it seems like not a great move

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the rule changes which would allow SpaceX to be auto bought by those funds has been blocked Nothing was blocked. S&P 500 never adopted them. Influencers misunderstood what a consultation document is and presented a question as a fait accompli . NASDAQ 100 changed its rules, as did S&P and Russell's total-market funds. But for NASDAQ 100 I'm going to go ahead and say this was a brilliant market move, since nobody ev…

Crsp changed as well.

> Crsp changed as well

Yes. For their total-market fund. That makes sense. (CRSP is probably the most-significant index to make the change. But even then, it won't be a significant source of demand. Total market means lots of components.)

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

#157
post #29

I don’t get what’s the point of non-profits if you can IPO them. How does that make any sense?

The nonprofit (OpenAI Foundation) owns ~26% of the for-profit, plus some extra warrants. The for-profit (OpenAI Group PBC) is what's filing the S-1 Draft. The OpenAI Foundation also exclusively appoints the board of the OpenAI Group PBC and can replace directors at any time. https://openai.com/our-structure/ (I work at OpenAI, but I am not a lawyer and am not speaking on behalf of OpenAI - just sharing my personal un…

If they truly wanted it to be in the benefit of the not-for-profit and safe from interference, the ownership by the foundation would be much closer to or just over 50%.... just thinking out loud...

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

#159
post #39

This is like a slack message

A very unserious tone from probably the most consequential company of our lifetimes. It's vibing all the way to the top I guess.

I prefer this tone to fake marketing speak. If they’d done a proper job here they’d be accused of having GPT write it. At least this is organic laziness!

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

#160
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to give women full agency over their own lives

No one has full agency over their life. The men who generally work harder, longer, and for more of their lives, that are shorter as a result, don't have fully agency. Having a boss isn't agency.

Ok, then, to give women as much agency as men have.
Post reply on HN