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

OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 359 posts

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#191

Post by standardUser »

terminalshort wrote: post #169
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? The simple answer is unless developing LLMs becomes commoditised, the best place in the world to do it is in San Francisco. You don't take your manufacturing business out of Shenzhen without very good reason.

Seems a little easier than that, though, because there are no supply chains involved (other than for the data centers, but those are already not in SF). Why else would the CA government be worried?

There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#192

Post by int_19h »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #12
leetharris wrote: post #4

This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…

This is very cynical, and almost certainly deliberately false take. Many situations are fundamentally uncertain with respect to laws/rules in place. The idea that they "skirted rules and regulations" is wrong. Did they push in an attempt to get a decision made which would favor them? Sure. But there was a decision to be made. And, the people are supposed to be in control anyway, not the government.

This is Sam Altman we're talking about, a man with a long track record of conning people. I don't think any benefit of the doubt is warranted here - I'm going to assume guilty unless and until clearly proven innocent because you only get to screw people over so many times.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#195

Post by int_19h »

laluser wrote: post #186
nmfisher wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but I feel like OpenAI raised far more money than those companies, burned through it far quicker and has much more competition with a much shakier value proposition. They definitely have a strong consumer brand so it’s not like they’re going to disappear, but I understand the bear case.

Sam A is pretty well connected and knows the game well. No doubt there will be some risks where the whole thing goes right down to zero, but I personally wouldn't bet against them.

I wouldn't bet against Sam Altman personally, but that's very different from betting on OpenAI.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#196

Post by wubrr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #160
wubrr wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're linking to pre-covid studies, that mention some types of benefits (for specific reasons like logistics benefits for businesses relying on physical materials/goos, or physical access to people for the purposes of networking), for some kinds of industries, and also mention that these benefits are not seen for some industries. > Sometimes cluster strategies still do not produce enough of a positive impact to be j…

> linking to pre-covid studies I'm linking to studies summarising a century of work. There is no evidence Covid changed this. Exhibit A for Covid having not changed this is the continuing supremacy of Silicon Valley (tech), Shenzhen (manufacturing) and New York (finance) as industrial clusters that others have tried to replicate (everyone, America and Miami, respectively) and failed. > Let's take a step back and look…

> Exhibit A for Covid having not changed this is the continuing supremacy of Silicon Valley (tech)

You mean like when China built chatgpt 4 in a weekend and open-sourced it for giggles?

> Shenzhen (manufacturing)

..or you mean how US manufacturing 'clusters' almost completely disappeared/replaced by Chinese ones?

> Proximity to investors. Proximity to customers. Proximity to a skilled employee pool. Proxomity to acquirers.

Right, cause you have to physically pet every investor on the head to fundraise, your remote employees must be in san fran cause network latency interferes with their windows remote desktop workflow, and, for some reason, you have to be physically close to your customers when you're selling your web-only llm wrapper saas.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#197

Post by andy99 »

linuxftw wrote: post #184
andy99 wrote: post #172

IPO is to leave someone holding the bag, right? The narrative has really changed from AGI, the most consequential technology, blabla. If I had that I would keep it private. If I wanted to cash out, I’d do an IPO. Is there a narrative that doesn’t make it seem like pump and dump?

In the before times, companies went public to raise capital in order to grow their business.

Does that seem like what’s happening here?

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#198

Post by mlmonkey »

tedd4u wrote: post #165
cma wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the big holders aren't residents, they can move away just before like Rogan with his Spotify deal, or Jonathan Blow just before a game release after developing in California and going to public college there, etc. Since it's a non-profit still holding it any gains to the non-profit entity upon the conversion don't go to California, and principal stakeholders can move away. Other funds raised from the IPO can b…

I'd recommend anyone expecting to profit from OpenAI stock and aiming to avoid California taxes to look into the subject in depth with paid advisors. The California FTB is not stupid or naïve and has a history of successfully getting paid for stock that vested with a California nexus, even if the beneficiary moves out of state. Good luck!

Take a look at Shohei Ohtani's contract.

Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO

#200

Post by terminalshort »

standardUser wrote: post #191
terminalshort wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a little easier than that, though, because there are no supply chains involved (other than for the data centers, but those are already not in SF). Why else would the CA government be worried?

There's books written about the Bay Area and the factors that make (or made) it uniquely suited for developing new technologies. There's even college courses about it. Some of it's surely provincial fluff, but it's undeniable that California has been an essential incubator for a whole series of world-changing, fortune-making technologies.

I don't want to downplay the network effects here, but it's in CA entirely by coincidence. SV is in CA because William Shockley's family is there, which is why he founded Shockley Semiconductor there. It could have been somewhere else. The 2nd largest tech hub is in Seattle. It's there because that's were Bill Gates is from. Is SF the best place to start a startup if you want in office talent in 2025. 100% yes, but that has nothing to do with the Bay Area and everything to do with accidents of history.
Post reply on HN