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

281–290 of 345 posts

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

#281

Post by hypendev »

magarnicle wrote: post #225
hypendev wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't argue the same. My parents love using ChatGPT, asking it all kinds of questions. My mom discovered Claude and helps her immensely with her job - where she would have to take it home and work a few hours to be able to finish the tasks on her computer, as her company that still uses Office 98, now Claude does it in 5 minutes. They fixed so many random issues using it, it is insane. My dad had a bike issue wh…

Office 98

Sorry, my bad, might be 97 running on windows 98 - but yes, this is a giant corporation serving hundreds of corporate customers and a few hundred thousand private ones, using nearly 30 years old software because the management does not see reasons to upgrade and spend the extra cost associated with it. New machines and Windows XP are only used by upper management.

Worst part?

Their whole software stack is running on some version of Visual Basic, written by a dude that did not trust "others code" so he wrote everything from scratch, and retired about 5 years ago.

Nobody knows how any of it works, or has any clue. The company will continue to run it and pay him for consultations as long as he is able to do it.

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

#282

Post by andsoitis »

system2 wrote: post #169
andsoitis wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the market Which market? The stock market? Or the tech stocks? Or something else?

Then someone says the market; they definitely mean the stock market. I don't know what else you can understand from it.

Why would the entire market implode?

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

#283

Post by valleyer »

sometimelurker wrote: post #181
levocardia wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you short the market?

crashes aren't shortable unless you know exactly when they are going to happen

The root comment of this thread does purport to know when that will happen (well, pending public announcement of those two IPO dates).

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

#284

Post by NitpickLawyer »

merelydev wrote: post #266

In the last week Alphabet has positioned itself to go on the offense, going after exccess liquidity and excess compute. I fear that OpenAi and Anthropic would not be able to compete against an adveserial Alphabet which owns it's own models, hardware, large corpus of data, talent and network effects. My prediction is that OpenAI and Anthropic will eventually be crushed by Alphabet as they run out of investment and com…

> This is why I think OpenAI and Anthropic should really be one company

I think the more companies there are, the better. Having 3 top labs competing, with 2 more trailing is better for consumers than having a monopoly/duopoly in goog or goog vs. the world. There'll be pressure on innovation, cost, availability and so on.

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

#285

Post by JumpCrisscross »

wyager wrote: post #261
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has completely dropped the ball Apple has sat out a capital-allocation shitshow. Its investors and likely customers are better off for their patience.

That would be a valid explanation if they hadn't totally oversold and underdelivered on "apple intelligence". In reality, this explanation is just cope

> this explanation is just cope

I'm not saying they played 5D chess. Maybe they got lucky. But they're coming out of this infrastructure boom with the second-highes P/E ratio in the Magnificent 7 [1], dividend intact, and tens of billions of cash on balance sheet unburned (and their stock and balance sheet unincumbered by new debt or stock sales).

[1] https://dividend.watch/lists/magnificent-7-stocks

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

#286

Post by merelydev »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #284
merelydev wrote: post #266

In the last week Alphabet has positioned itself to go on the offense, going after exccess liquidity and excess compute. I fear that OpenAi and Anthropic would not be able to compete against an adveserial Alphabet which owns it's own models, hardware, large corpus of data, talent and network effects. My prediction is that OpenAI and Anthropic will eventually be crushed by Alphabet as they run out of investment and com…

> This is why I think OpenAI and Anthropic should really be one company I think the more companies there are, the better. Having 3 top labs competing, with 2 more trailing is better for consumers than having a monopoly/duopoly in goog or goog vs. the world. There'll be pressure on innovation, cost, availability and so on.

I agree, generally competition is a good thing, but in this case I think we're having a divide and conquer scenario that works in Google's advantage.

We're seeing that compute and investment liquidity is effectively a zero-sum game and by having Google go after the excess compute and liquidity (which they don't really need) will most likely weaken the competitors to the point where they aren't competitive. But if OpenAI and Anthropic merge they can pool resources and be more competitive.

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

#287

Post by vessenes »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #60
vessenes wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX IPO is slated to be $75-80bn — the market has size for that. We also have seen robust options and finance markets for AAPL and NVDA over the last years that make the broader ecosystem not overly worrying in my armchair opinion. I’m not clear how much crossover demand there is between SX and Anthropic/oAI — that seems like the more interesting question. I’m guessing if we had Anthropic/oAI launching at the same…

> if we had Anthropic/oAI launching at the same time Don't we have exactly that? There are S-1 announcements for SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI. Google is selling to raise money for infra (IIRC). There's an absurd amount of money flowing in at present (prospectively at least).

The reality is that the large banks running these IPOs will know, to an extreme level of granularity, how much demand for the IPO there is at the chosen price point, and will advise accordingly.

None of the companies needs an IPO right now, with the possible exception of oAI — I haven’t looked at their financials recently. But SX is cashflow positive as of today, and Anthropic is able to become so without giving up much on their R&D program. So for those two, it’s a matter of timing.

Like a video game release schedule or a film release, SX has carved out a window and is going first, and regardless of messaging, all the teams are going to be watching it VERY VERY carefully. If it goes well, I’d expect Anthropic to jump next.

If that goes well, oAI would likely go right after. If it goes mid, oAI may wait to improve their financial story or fundraise private at worse valuations for a while, or, or, or.

Agreed that the dream for the next guys down the road is to pick up some recycled capital gains from sx and of course some new capital. If SX is a flop, then these IPO dreams will slow down for a minute.

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

#288

Post by brendoelfrendo »

merelydev wrote: post #286
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I think OpenAI and Anthropic should really be one company I think the more companies there are, the better. Having 3 top labs competing, with 2 more trailing is better for consumers than having a monopoly/duopoly in goog or goog vs. the world. There'll be pressure on innovation, cost, availability and so on.

I agree, generally competition is a good thing, but in this case I think we're having a divide and conquer scenario that works in Google's advantage. We're seeing that compute and investment liquidity is effectively a zero-sum game and by having Google go after the excess compute and liquidity (which they don't really need) will most likely weaken the competitors to the point where they aren't competitive. But if Ope…

This is a very persuasive argument that Google should have been broken up years ago.

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

#289

Post by lljk_kennedy »

pseudosavant wrote: post #251

It is increasingly look like OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX (xAI) are going to burst their own AI bubble by going public. Their businesses aren't ready for that kind of quarter-by-quarter grinding scrutiny. It is going to be bad when their lockup periods end.

Reality left the building a long time ago. I think a lot of world models of how things "should" go are severely outdated.

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

#290

Post by mschuster91 »

dofm wrote: post #25
shimman wrote: post #15

Growing worry I have are the dozens of newly minted corporate elites that will continue to wreck havoc on the tech industry mandating their golden paths while America still lacks medicare for all, college for all, and universal childcare. If you think Sam Altman is bad for the industry, imagine what 200 of him will be like!

I was wondering about this the other week. Is there a chart, somewhere, like a family tree, of what the Apple and Microsoft stock "ordinary millionaires" went on to do?

Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington of early-ish Microsoft went on to found and fund Valve.
Post reply on HN