181–190 of 443 posts
They haven't even started their own versions of AdWords. Google's money printing is based on people telling Google what they want in the search bar, and google placing ads about what they want right when they ask for it. Today people type what they want in the ChatGPT search bar.
Difference is is that I can just switch to another LLM. I cant really do the same for Google.
$6.6B raise. The company loses $5B per year. So all this money literally gives them just an extra ~year and change of runway. I know the AI hype is sky high at the moment (hence the crazy valuation), but if they don't make the numbers make sense soon then I don't see things ending well for OpenAI. Another interesting part: > Under the terms of the new investment round, OpenAI has two years to transform into a for-pro…
> I don't see things ending well for OpenAI. I mean, what exactly do you see happening? The have a product people love and practically incalculable upside potential. They may or may not end up the winners, but I see no scenario in which it "doesn't end well". It's already "well", even if the company went defunct tomorrow. > that clause with that timeline seems a bit risky. I'm 99% certain that OpenAI drove the terms…
also, for my use case I eventually found it’s faster and easier and less frustrating to write code myself (empowering) and not get sucked into repeatedly reminding AI of my intent and asking it to fix bugs and divergences (disempowering)
Plus, you can find alternatives now for the random edge cases where you do actually want to chat with an out of date version of the docs, which don’t train on user input.
I recommend we all “hard pass” on OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, basically anyone who’s got prohibitions on competition while simultaneously training their competing intelligence on your input. Eventually these things are going to wreck our knowledge work economy and it seems like a form of economic self-harm to knowingly contribute to outsource our knowledge work to externals…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue isn't profit. They're burning money at an impressive rate: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/27/technology/openai-chatgpt... I wouldn't even be surprised if they were losing money on paying ChatGPT users on inference compute alone, and that isn't even factoring in the development of new models. There was an interesting article here (can't find the link unfortunately) that was arguing that model training costs s…
Training costs scale to infinite users making them a perfect moat even if they need to keep updating it. Success would be 10-100x current users at which point training costs at the current scale just don’t matter. Really their biggest risk is total compute costs falling too quickly or poor management.
Does OpenAI have a moat?
As a layman outsider, it doesn't seem like it. Anthropic is doing great work (I personally prefer Claude) and now there are so many quality LLMs coming out that I don't know if OpenAI is particularly special anymore. They had a lead at first, but it feels like many others are catching up. I could be _very_ wrong though.
I wonder why Apple pulled out
Apple is an extremely conservative minded company. Making a huge gamble on an overhyped overvalued company for a chance at a 10x return isn't in their DNA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The have a product people love and practically incalculable upside potential I'm willing to bet that if you swapped out GPT with Claude, Gemini or Llama under the hood 95% of their users wouldn't even notice. LLMs are fast becoming a commodity. The differentiating factor is simply how many latest NVIDIA GPUs the company owns. And even otherwise, people loving a product isn't what makes a company successful. People…
> I'm willing to bet that if you swapped out GPT with Claude, Gemini or Llama under the hood 95% of their users wouldn't even notice You can say exactly the same about Google and Bing (or any other search engines), yet Google search is still dominant. Execution, market perception, brand recognition, momentum are also important factors, not to mention talent and funding. Not everyone who wants to invest, can invest in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given their scale and direct investments from Microsoft, what makes you think this is any cheaper? They’ll be getting stuff at or near cost from azure, and Azure already exists and with huge scale to amortize all of the investments across more than just OpenAI, including volume discounts (and preference) from nvidia.
I assumed that Microsoft gave them discount and credits as investment, but the cost by itself is like any other big customer can get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given their scale and direct investments from Microsoft, what makes you think this is any cheaper? They’ll be getting stuff at or near cost from azure, and Azure already exists and with huge scale to amortize all of the investments across more than just OpenAI, including volume discounts (and preference) from nvidia.
I assumed that Microsoft gave them discount and credits as investment, but the cost by itself is like any other big customer can get.
Like you could discount say a 10B investment down to 6B or w/e the actual costs are but now your share of OpenAI is based on 6B. Seems better to me to give OpenAI a "10B" investment that internally only costs 6B so your share of OpenAI is based on 10B.
Plus OpenAI probably likes the 10B investment more as it raises their market cap.
Given the high risk, investors likely want a shot of earning at least a 10x return. $157 billion x 10 = $1.57 trillion, greater than META's current market capitalization. Greater returns would require even more aggressive assumptions. For example, a 30x return would require OpenAI to become the world's most valuable company by a large margin. All I can say to the investors, with the best of hopes, is: Good luck! You'…
Given the high risk, investors likely want a shot of earning at least a 10x return. $157 billion x 10 = $1.57 trillion, greater than META's current market capitalization. Greater returns would require even more aggressive assumptions. For example, a 30x return would require OpenAI to become the world's most valuable company by a large margin. All I can say to the investors, with the best of hopes, is: Good luck! You'…
If they accomplish AGI first, they will be the world’s most valuable company, by far. If they fall short of AGI there are still many ways a more limited but still quite useful AI might make them worth far more than Meta. I don’t know how to handicap the odds of them doing either of these at all, but they would seem to have the best chance at it of anyone right now.
Alternatively, what are you imagining this “AGI” you speak of to be?