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

OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 443 posts

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#391

Post by tboyd47 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #259
tboyd47 wrote: post #128

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.

That's true. Thankfully, superintelligences are also poor at negotiating and projecting their own income, so you can still make a handsome profit off of them.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#392

Post by cubefox »

hshshshsvsv wrote: post #374
cubefox wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is measurement? What is a definition?

Well the original claim is super intelligence is going to be achieved by OpenAI. So I assume you have defined it and figured out a way to measure in the first place so that you know it has been achieved. So probably on you to explain it since you came up with that claim.

I think first you have to explain what you mean with definition and measurement since you were the one to ask for those.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#393

Post by tempusalaria »

signatoremo wrote: post #155
paxys wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The have a product people love and practically incalculable upside potential I'm willing to bet that if you swapped out GPT with Claude, Gemini or Llama under the hood 95% of their users wouldn't even notice. LLMs are fast becoming a commodity. The differentiating factor is simply how many latest NVIDIA GPUs the company owns. And even otherwise, people loving a product isn't what makes a company successful. People…

> I'm willing to bet that if you swapped out GPT with Claude, Gemini or Llama under the hood 95% of their users wouldn't even notice You can say exactly the same about Google and Bing (or any other search engines), yet Google search is still dominant. Execution, market perception, brand recognition, momentum are also important factors, not to mention talent and funding. Not everyone who wants to invest, can invest in…

From an API point of view (I.e. developer/corporate usage), I am quite sure that OpenAI is lower usage than Gemini now, and Anthropic API revenue is like 60% of OpenAI based on recent reporting. OpenAI is definitely not dominant in this area.

The aspect of corporate usage where OpenAI seems to be ahead is in direct enterprise subscriptions to ChatGPT.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#394

Post by layer8 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #294
layer8 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe. Moats are often surprising. Google’s moat is just that people think of Google when they think of search. Bing could be significantly better than Google, and in fact, a lot of people think it is, and still not get anywhere. 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 no…

Google’s moat is their search index and infrastructure (which is significantly larger-scale than an LLM), and the fact that non-Google/Microsoft web crawlers are being blocked by most websites.

Windows’ moat is enterprise integration, and the sheer amount of software targeting it (despite appearances, the whole world doest’t run on the web), including hardware drivers (which, among other things, makes it the gaming platform that it is).

OpenAI could build a moat on integrations, as I mentioned.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#395

Post by tempusalaria »

Nathanael_M wrote: post #324
changing1999 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing, nothing points to a world with a single winner in AI models. I get what you are saying, but not sure OpenAI can survive the burn unless they build an unmatchable AGI. And that's pure speculation at this point.

I mean, someone needs to rise to the top, unless society as a whole just says "There's no value here." and frankly there's too much real value right now for that. So someone's surviving, at least at the service level. Maybe they just end up building off of open source models, but I can't see how the best brains in the business don't find a way to get paid to make these models. Am I missing something?

There’s definitely a future for LLMs from an enterprise point of view. Even current capability models will be widely used by companies. But it’s seems that will be highly commoditized space, and OpenAI lacks the deep pockets and infrastructure capabilities of Meta and Google to distribute that commodity at the lowest cost.

OpenAI valuation is reliant IMO on them on them 1) AGI possible through NNs, 2) them developing AGI first and 3) it being somewhat hard to replicate. Personally I’d probably stick 10%, 40%, and 10% on those but I’m sure others would have very different opinions or even disagree with my whole premise.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#396

Post by tim333 »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #53

I for one can never get over the fact that Mira Murati was not laughed out of the room when she said -- with a straight face -- that GPT4 had high school level intelligence and the non-existent GPT5 will have PHD-level intelligence [1]. IMO -- this is not a serious company with serious people building an important long-lived product. This is a group of snake oil salesmen that are in the middle of the greatest grift o…

That doesn't seem far off to me. Having used GPT4 it seems similar to a high school student in abilities and Murati's actual quote was "The next iteration, GPT-5, is expected to reach the intelligence level of a PhD holder in specific tasks" which seems quite plausible. Note the "specific tasks" bit.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#397

Post by staticman2 »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #349
staticman2 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing high school is a level of education not a "intelligence level". For another thing there is not a single google search result for the phrase "high school intelligence level task". Unless Google is malfunctioning it seems you are just making things up?

Don't shoot the messenger, that's someone else's wording not mine, I'm speaking to their claim. I don't think this wording is something that needs to be analysed to death, after all someone will just move the goalposts (typically by those who want to place human intelligence on some podium as special). This is a task I'd entrust a high school student to do (emphasis on student). They said high school intelligence not…

A forum user above said they are not a serious company with serious people. Would a serious person with a serious interest in "intelligence" make up terms like "high school intelligence".

>>>This is a task I'd entrust a high school student to do (emphasis on student). They said high school intelligence not high school education.

I'm sure you don't actually believe all high school students are equally intelligent or on the same coursework track, or that all high schools teach the same courses with the same level of sophistication, so I'm not sure why you are defending the term "high school intelligence" or saying they even made a "claim".

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#398

Post by tim333 »

jppope wrote: post #196

Can't help but think about this scene from silicon valley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo The "no revenue" scene... All OpenAI needs to do is start making some revenue to offset the costs!

It's too late! They have revenue. Safe Superintelligence Inc is showing the way.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#399

Post by xvector »

benterix wrote: post #359
xvector wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone in the thread has used o1 or the real-time voice tools, it's pretty clear AGI is here already, so we are really talking about ASI. You have no option but to trust an ASI as it is all-powerful by definition. If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. Edit: please note that AGI ≠ "human intelligence," just a general intelligence (that may exceed humans in some areas…

> If you don't trust ASI, your only option is to prevent it from existing to begin with. I don't understand this sentence. I don't trust Generative AI because it often spits out false, inaccurate or made up answers, but I don't believe my "only option is to prevent it from existing".

ASI by definition will be all-powerful or close to it. What are you gonna do if it comes into existence?

Because if you don't trust it, you're fucked:

- Your attempts to limit its influence on your life will be effective only if the ASI decides to willfully ignore or not notice you.

- If it lies or not, there's nothing you can really do. The outcome it wants is practically guaranteed regardless. It will be running circles around your mental capacity like a human drawing circles around an ant on a piece of paper.

So what option do you really have but to trust it? I mean, sure, you can not trust the all-powerful god, but your lack of trust will never really have any effect on the real world, or even your life, as the ASI will always get what it wants.

Really, your only option is to prevent it from happening to begin with.

All that said - I think ASI will be great and people's concerns are overblown.

Re: OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

#400

Post by epolanski »

muzani wrote: post #379
epolanski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet you're ignoring that competitors, have done a terrific job at catching up in extremely small time frames. Hell, even Nvidia 2 weeks ago released their own LLM model which is competitive with the best commercial ones. AI is a commodity, eventually where money will be made (interacting with the software and user, from Excel to your OS like Apple Intelligence) it won't be much relevant which model you use, average J…

I don't consider models a commodity though. Coffee and steel are commodities. You need some level of quality and materials, but they can be swapped out. Models are more like engines or CPUs. Unbenchmarked things like their ability to use south Jakartan slang, writing jokes, how and when they reject input, how tightly they adhere to system input, how they'd rate a thing from 1-10. They function as a part of a complex…

I have also worked on an ai chatbot for legal purposes, and the differences between models were negligible when most of what you're doing is RAG (99% of apps out there).

I have also tried the different models in cursor and again the differences were negligible with some projects and questions slightly favoring one or the other.

Which does nothing but confirm that none of those has any kind of moat really. Data and products are eventually what's gonna make money, and the models used will likely be an implementation detail like choosing a database or a programming language.

Post reply on HN