181–190 of 720 posts
The cost for YouTube to rapidly grow and to serve the traffic was astronomical back then.
I wonder if 1 day OpenAI will be acquired by a large big tech, just like YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yep, we are (unfortunately) still running on railroad infrastructure built a century ago. That which survived, at least. A whole lot of rail infrastructure was not viable and soon became waste of its own. There was, at one time, ten rail lines around my parts, operated by six different railway companies. Only one of them remains fully intact to this day. One other line retained a short section that is still standin…
If 1/10 investment lasts 100 years that seems pretty good to me. Plus I'd bet a lot of the 9/10 of that investment had a lot of the material cost re-coup'd when scrapping the steel. I don't think you're going to recoup a lot of money from the H100s.
H100s are effectively consumables used in the construction of the metaphorical rail. The actual rail lines had their own fare share of necessary tools that retained little to no residual value after use as well. This isn't anything unique.
I think the most interesting numbers in this piece (ignoring the stock compensation part) are: $4.3 billion in revenue - presumably from ChatGPT customers and API fees $6.7 billion spent on R&D $2 billion on sales and marketing - anyone got any idea what this is? I don't remember seeing many ads for ChatGPT but clearly I've not been paying attention in the right places. Open question for me: where does the cost of ru…
Stop R&D and the competition is at parity with 10x cheaper models in 3-6 months. Stop training and your code model generates tech debt after 3-6 month
With the marginal gains diminishing, do we really think they're (all of them) are going to continue spending that much more for each generation? Even the big guys with the money like google can't justify increasing spending forever given this. The models are good enough for a lot of useful tasks for a lot of people. With all due respect to the amazing science and engineering, OpenAI (and probably the rest) have arrived at their performance with at least half of the credit going to brute-force compute, hence the cost. I don't think they'll continue that in the face of diminishing returns. Someone will ramp down and get much closer to making money, focusing on maximizing token cost efficiency to serve and utility to users with a fixed model(s). GPT-5 with it's auto-routing between different performance models seems like a clear move in this direction. I bet their cost to serve the same performance as say gemini 2.5 is much lower.
Naively, my view is that there's some threshold raw performance that's good enough for 80% of users, and we're near it. There's always going to be demand for bleeding edge, but money is in mass market. So if you hit that threshold, you ramp down training costs and focus on tooling + ease of use and token generation efficiency to match 80% of use cases. Those 80% of users will be happy with slowly increasing performance past the threshold, like iphone updates. Except they probably won't charge that much more since the competition is still there. But anyway, now they're spending way less on R&D and training, and the cost to serve tokens @ the same performance continues to drop.
All of this is to say, I don't think they're in that dreadful of a position. I can't even remember why I chose you to reply to, I think the "10x cheaper models in 3-6 months" caught me. I'm not saying they can drop R&D/training to 0. You wouldn't want to miss out on the efficiency of distillation, or whatever the latest innovations I don't know about are. Oh and also, I am confident that whatever the real number N is for NX cheaper in 3-6 months, a large fraction of that will come from hardware gains that are common to all of the labs.
I am not willing to render my personal verdict here yet. Yet it is certainly true that at ~700m MAUs it is hard to say the product has not reached scale yet. It's not mature, but it's sort of hard to hand wave and say they are going to make the economics work at some future scale when they don't work at this size. It really feels like they absolutely must find another revenue model for this to be viable. The other op…
It’s not a hand wave… The cost to serve a particular level of AI drops by like 10x a year. AI has gotten good enough that next year people can continue to use the current gen AI but at that point it will be profitable. Probably 70%+ gross margin. Right now it’s a race for market share. But once that backs off, prices will adjust to profitability. Not unlike the Uber/Lyft wars.
> AI has gotten good enough that next year people can continue to use the current gen AI
This is problematic because by next year, an OSS model will be as good. If they don't keep pushing the frontier, what competitive moat do they have to extract a 70% gross margin?
If ChatGPT slows the pace of improvement, someone will certainly fund a competitor to build a clone that uses an OSS model and sets pricing at 70% less than ChatGPT. The curse of betting on being a tech leader is that your business can implode if you stop leading.
Similarly, this is very similar to the argument that PCs were "good enough" in any given year and that R&D could come down. The one constant seems to be people always want more.
> Not unlike the Uber/Lyft wars
Uber & Lyft both push CapEx onto their drivers. I think a more apt model might be AWS MySQL vs Oracle MySQL, or something similar. If the frontier providers stagnate, I fully expect people to switch to e.g. DeepSeek 6 for 10% the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spreading illiquid wealth *
They’ve had multiple secondary sales opportunities in the past few years, always at a higher valuation. By this point, if someone who’s been there >2 years hasn’t taken money off the table it’s most likely their decision. I don’t work there but know several early folks and I’m absolutely thrilled for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have to compete with Zuckerberg throwing $100M comps to poach people. I think $830k per person is nothing in comparison.
Both numbers are entirely ludicrous - highly skilled people are certainly quite valuable. But it's insane that these companies aren't just training up more internally. The 50x developer is a pervasive myth in our industry and it's one that needs to be put to rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unlike railroads and fibre, all the best compute in 2025 will be lacklustre in 2027. I definitely don't think compute is anything like railroads and fibre, but I'm not so sure compute will continue it's efficiency gains of the past. Power consumption for these chips is climbing fast, lots of gains are from better hardware support for 8bit/4bit precision, I believe yields are getting harder to achieve as things get…
Unfortunately the chips themselves probably won’t physically last much longer than that under the workloads they are being put to. So, yes, they won’t be totally obsolete as technology in 2028, but they may still have to be replaced.
There is an absolute glut of cheap compute available right now due to VC and other funds dumping into the industry (take advantage of it while it exists!) but I'm pretty sure Wall St. will balk when they realize the continued costs of maintaining that compute and look at the revenue that expenditure is generating. People think of chips as a piece of infrastructure - you buy a personal computer and it'll keep chugging for a decade without issue in most case - but GPUs are essentially consumables - they're an input to producing the compute a data center sells that needs constant restocking - rather than a one-time investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If 1/10 investment lasts 100 years that seems pretty good to me. Plus I'd bet a lot of the 9/10 of that investment had a lot of the material cost re-coup'd when scrapping the steel. I don't think you're going to recoup a lot of money from the H100s.
Much like LLMs. There are approximately 10 reasonable players giving it a go, and, unless this whole AI thing goes away, never to be seen again, it is likely that one of them will still be around in 100 years. H100s are effectively consumables used in the construction of the metaphorical rail. The actual rail lines had their own fare share of necessary tools that retained little to no residual value after use as well…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both numbers are entirely ludicrous - highly skilled people are certainly quite valuable. But it's insane that these companies aren't just training up more internally. The 50x developer is a pervasive myth in our industry and it's one that needs to be put to rest.
The ∞x engineer exists in my opinion. There are some things that can only be executed by a few people that no body else could execute. Like you could throw 10000 engineers at a problem and they might not be able to solve that problem, but a single other person could solve that problem. I have known several people who have went to OAI and I would firmly say they are 10x engineers, but they are just doing general infra…
Nobody wants to hear that one dev can be 50x better, but it's obvious that everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses and not every mind is replaceable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike railroads and fibre, all the best compute in 2025 will be lacklustre in 2027. It won’t retain much value in the same way as the infrastructure of previous bubbles did?
Exactly: when was the last time you used ChatGPT-3.5? Its value deprecated to zero after, what, two-and-a-half years? (And the Nvidia chips used to train it have barely retained any value either) The financials here are so ugly: you have to light truckloads of money on fire forever just to jog in place.
It may be like looking at the early Google and saying they are spending loads on compute and haven't even figured how to monetize search, the investors are doomed.