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

OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 323 posts

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#301

Post by stavros »

tomjuggler wrote: post #300
stavros wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My testing has been very limited, so I don't want to opine too much. If anyone has a differing opinion based on more testing, please share, I'm interested!

So I've been using Deepseek for 3 months with Aider coding assistant. Look up the "Aider LLM leaderboard" for proper test results if you like, in my experience the Deepseek V3 is just as good as Claude at less than 1/10th the price. I can't speak about o1 it is just too expensive to be worth it OpenAI is going to be beaten on price, wait and see.

Did Aider integrate v3 in its benchmarks? I checked yesterday and I didn't see it...

EDIT: Oh it did, wow, and it's better than Claude! Fantastic, this is great news, thank you!

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#302

Post by numpy-thagoras »

abc-1 wrote: post #69
numpy-thagoras wrote: post #14

OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. OpenAI's C-suite: Well, they earned the C, but it was a letter grade. What a profoundly unimaginative strategy. No matter the industry, a large-scale diversion of resources towards a moonshot goal will likely get you to that goal. They haven't made an argument as to why we should do that just for them, especially with all of the other alternatives. And no, advertising your…

> OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. Then why do they look about average to Anthropic, Mistral, DeepSeek, and many others of that cohort despite having x100 the amount of resources?

Praising one doesn't mean condemning another.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#303

Post by numpy-thagoras »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #75
numpy-thagoras wrote: post #14

OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. OpenAI's C-suite: Well, they earned the C, but it was a letter grade. What a profoundly unimaginative strategy. No matter the industry, a large-scale diversion of resources towards a moonshot goal will likely get you to that goal. They haven't made an argument as to why we should do that just for them, especially with all of the other alternatives. And no, advertising your…

”They haven’t made an argument as to why we should do that just for them…” What “we”? They’ve already raised billions, and I suspect they’re about to succeed at raising tens of billions more, despite the skepticism of random HN users.

Tens of billions? Sama has been talking about how their ask can be for over a trillion dollars invested. What "we"? That trillion is going to come out of our pockets one way or another, either as costs passed down, as government handouts from our tax dollars, as redirected investments that dry up opportunities for SWEs elsewhere, etc.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#304

Post by int_19h »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #103
VHRanger wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google spent heavily to index websites without a clear path to profitability Uh, they were advertising in 1999 already?

Please read the academic paper by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, available at this link: https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2019/10/28/the-academic-p... You might find their perspective on advertising surprising. Returning to my earlier point, please expand your argument about why OpenAI may fail. Let’s aim to elevate the discussion.

I would say that this paper rather supports the point: the people who made Google knew from the get go that ads were one way to make money off it (even if they didn't like the notion).

OpenAI, in contrast, still doesn't have any notion as to how to make it all profitable.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#305

Post by SignalsDoctor »

myhf wrote: post #140

Unimaginable Sums of Money Are All You Need The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Huge Sums of Money in the Natural Sciences Unimaginable Sums of Money Considered Harmful

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Unimaginable Sums of Money

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#306

Post by cyanydeez »

cs702 wrote: post #21

This rings true to my ears: > There is no technical moat in this field, and so OpenAI is the epicenter of an investment bubble. Thus, effectively, OpenAI is to this decade’s generative-AI revolution what Netscape was to the 1990s’ internet revolution. The revolution is real, but it’s ultimately going to be a commodity technology layer, not the foundation of a defensible proprietary moat. In 1995 investors mistakenly…

....or they could bewikipedia.

But greeed isgood!

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#307

Post by cyanydeez »

saurik wrote: post #149
bruce511 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no technical moat, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moat. Amazon might be a good analogy here. I'm old enough to remember when Amazon absorbed billions of VC money, making losses year over year. Every day there was some new article about how insane it was. There's no technical moat around online sales. And lots of companies sell online. But Amazon is still the biggest (by a long long way) (at least in the…

A couple other comments touch on the point I want to make, but I feel they don't nail it hard enough: if today you told me you had a website that was 100% technologically identical to Amazon, but you were willing to make slightly less money, you'd still have no products... as a user I'd have no reason to go there, but then without users there is no reason to sell there, so you have a circular bootstrapping issue. Tha…

You spelled monopoly weirdly.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#308

Post by xboxnolifes »

brookst wrote: post #145
xboxnolifes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To sell the illusion of not using copyrighted works they make it publicly aware that they license some works.

You think the public in general is highly concerned with protecting copyrighted works? Like, they’re all saying “I would love to pay OpenAI but they are infringing on my beloved Reuters copyrights”?

"The public"? No. But it makes for nice investigation defense to be able to say you've made an attempt to avoid training on copyrighted works.

Re: OpenAI’s board, paraphrased: ‘All we need is unimaginable sums of money’

#309

Post by [deleted] »

numpy-thagoras wrote: post #302
abc-1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI's engineers: brilliant, A+, A* even. Then why do they look about average to Anthropic, Mistral, DeepSeek, and many others of that cohort despite having x100 the amount of resources?

Praising one doesn't mean condemning another.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN