291–300 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is dependent on Microsoft for GPUs, who are in turn dependent on Nvidia for GPUs. It’s nearly the least moat-y version of this out there.
Used to be when they had no money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if they don't make the numbers make sense soon then I don't see things ending well for OpenAI. This is pretty much obvious just from the valuations. The wild bull case where they invent a revolutionary superintelligence would clearly value them in the trillions, so the fact that they're presently valued an order of magnitude less implies that it is viewed as an unlikely scenario (and reasonably so, in my opinion).
You don't need science fiction to find the bull case for OpenAI. You just have to think it stands to be the "next" Google, which feels increasingly plausible. Google's current market capitalization is in the trillions.
The models will have diminishing returns and other players seem better suited to providing value added features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If AGI is accomplished, there’s unlikely to be a “secret sauce” to it (or a patentable sauce), and accomplishing AGI won’t by itself constitute a moat.
A lot of people said Microsoft’s Windows moat in desktop operating systems was gone when you could do most of the things that a program did inside a browser instead, but it’s been decades now and they still have a 70% market share.
If you establish a lead in a product, it’s usually not that hard to find a moat.
In April they hyped up being able to talk to something like a H.E.R. Yet it seems all hype and not a reality. They say sign up and u might get access lol ... startup for speak give us ur money but we don't have the product we advertised/hyped up! Won't give them anymore of my money!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That assumes that the revolutionary superintelligence is willing to give away its economic value by the trillions. (Revolutionary superintelligences are known to be supergenerous too)
I assume it needs super amounts of hardware and super amounts of energy. No one gets a free ride not even superintelligences or people working for health insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has also magnificently shit the bed with Gemini; their ads business is getting raked over the coals in court; they are a twice convicted monopolist; and are driving away top talent in droves. It reminds me of the old joke: Heard about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past each floor, he kept saying to reassure himself: So far so good... so far so good... so far so good.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine, Sam's bulletproof plan is to build AGI (how hard could it be) and then ask the AGI how they can make a return on their investments. https://www.threads.net/@nixcraft/post/C5vj0naNlEq If they haven't built AGI yet that just means you should give them more billions so they can build the AGI. You wouldn't want your earlier investments to go to waste, right?
AGI's answer will be easy: hyperinflation. Kills many birds with one stone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardware required is the same, just in different amounts. It’s less (gross) expensive for inference, since it takes less time, but the cost of that time (per second) is the same as training.
Obviously, that's my point. We can do the math. GPT-4o can emit about 70 tokens a second. API pricing is $10/million for output tokens and $2.5/million for input tokens. Assuming a workload where inputs tokens are 10:1 with output tokens, and that I can generate continuous load (constantly generating tokens). I'll end up paying $210/day in API fees, or $76,650 in a year. Let's assume the hardware required to service…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How old is that though? They seem to be making revenue pretty well now, so I suspect this might be quite old?
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…