471–480 of 620 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same strategy as for search. Gemini is going be shoveled down the mouth of users and they just won't change the default. On iOS with the Apple agreement, and on Android (though the question of hardware remains when considering beyond Pixel phones).
But that doesn't translate to paying Gemini customers
$730B pre-money for a company where each model is roughly 2x profitable on its own, but each next model costs 10x the last. The whole thing only works if scaling keeps delivering. Research (Sara Hooker et al.) is not encouraging on that front, compact models already outperform massive predecessors on downstream tasks while scaling laws only predict pre-training loss reliably. Wrote about both the per-model math and t…
Yes, but there's a chance that actually training is done more or less for free by companies like OpenAI. The reason being that they do a gigantic amount of inference for end users (for which they get paid), but their servers can't be constantly utilized at 100% by inference. So, if they know how to schedule things correctly (and they probably do), they can do the training of their new model on the unutilized compute capacity. If you or I were to pay for that training, it would be billions of dollars, but for them it is just using compute that otherwise would be idle.
IMO this looks largely like another circular investment. Amazon's investment is tied to OpenAI using AWS for their Frontier product and I assume Nvidia's conditions are that OpenAI continue buying hardware from them. Then there's SoftBank though given that those are the same guys that invested heavily in WeWork, I assume this is just very brash bullishness on their part. From my perspective, I hope that OpenAI surviv…
> On the one hand you can look at these companies investing and take it as a signal that there is something there (in OpenAI) that's worth investing in. On the other hand all these companies that are investing are basically getting that investment back through spending commitments and such and are just using OpenAI as a proxy for what is essentially buying more revenue for themselves. I don't understand how this is s…
It's a good question, what I think you're missing is that if the market is valuing me (NVIDIA) at 25x revenue then it's more like I traded you (OpenAI) a GPU it cost me $80 to make for $100 worth of OpenAI stock, and I got a bonus $2500 in market cap of my own stock (which existing shareholders like).
IOW for every incremental "$100" in revenue (circular or otherwise), existing shareholders get paid "$2500" in equity (NVIDIA appreciation + OpenAI shares).
This "works" for NVIDIA and its shareholders as long as they/the market keeps thinking $100 of OpenAI stock is a good price for a GPU. If OpenAI tangibly fails to deliver on this valuation then NVIDIA may wind up in the red on these deals.
Caveat: it's a bit more complicated than that as OpenAI doesn't typically buy/operate GPUs directly afaict, rather they team up with the big cloud providers like AMZN (also part of the deal). But it's an useful way to wrap your head around the economics, I think (open to correction, not a domain of professional expertise).
I don't see anything _inherently_ unethical about this as some comments seem to imply. It's definitely riskier than accepting cash, in which case you're free not to play, but it's a calculated risk based on future expectations of growth by OpenAI. Granted there are some sketchy incentives qua existing shareholders that could materialize in pump and dump dynamics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When models get cheaper to run for OpenAI, they also get cheaper for everyone else. It gets commoditized. AI might be able to do more, but most people aren’t going to pay for a thing they could get for free. See the many models on Huggingface as examples of that. And as the number of things AI is “good enough” at increases, the list of things on the frontier that people will want to pay OpenAI for shrinks. Even if Op…
> get cheaper to run Irrelevant. The model is the moat > most companies don’t care about that. Wrong. They will use the model that gives them an edge. If they are using a PhD but their competitors are using Einstein, they will lose. > center a div For sure a common use case, but is bot what the CEO is concerned about with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-4 came out 3 years ago and you can run comparable models for 1% of the cost nowadays. That is not 2x efficiency. That's two orders of magnitude in end-to-end compute efficiency.
you're looking at nearly the entire curve of the tech's development. that's like saying lightbulbs became 99% more energy efficient and therefore will become another 99% more energy efficient. but most techs follow an S curve.
All techs, eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the one hand you can look at these companies investing and take it as a signal that there is something there (in OpenAI) that's worth investing in. On the other hand all these companies that are investing are basically getting that investment back through spending commitments and such and are just using OpenAI as a proxy for what is essentially buying more revenue for themselves. I don't understand how this is s…
> I don't understand how this is some kind of cheat code. Let's say I give you $100 on the condition that you buy $100 worth of product from me. And let's say that product cost me $80 to produce. Isn't that basically the same as me giving you $80? I don't see at all how that's me "basically getting that investment back". What if the product only costs you $20 to produce?
there is no way openai - and players who are vested them can afford market to tank before it.
> Amazon will start with an initial $15 billion investment, followed by another $35 billion in the coming months when certain conditions are met. Those conditions are an IPO or reaching AGI [1]. Nvidia and SofBank will pay in installments. Also very interesting that Microsoft decided to not invest in this round. A PR statement was made though [2]. [1] https://americanbazaaronline.com/2026/02/26/amazon-to-invest... [2…
So they’re getting in on the IPO. Are they going to get stock for it or is it a PIPE? Personally, I don’t think I want to get in on this at retail prices. It can both be true at the same time that AI going to disrupt our world and that being an AI lab is a terrible business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing OpenAI and WeWork is a nonsensical perspective. OpenAI is shipping the most revolutionary product in a generation, with 800 million monthly active users. It's the fastest revenue ramp ever, at incredible scale -- $20B+ ARR. These are real fundamentals. They matter. And the cost of inference is coming down all the time. WeWork was a short-term/long-term lease arbitrage business. The two are nothing alike.
Will they maintain an edge over other AI companies long term? With so many market participants will it become a race to the bottom? This valuation puts their P/E around 40. Anthropic $380B valuation on $13B ARR. P/E around 30. 5 years ago Uber was in similar territory. Tesla... Well we won't mention Tesla.
Someone please explain how OpenAI is not Netscape 2026. They had first mover advantage but no network effect, no moat, and are racing to stay ahead of infinitely resourced incumbents.
How are ~1B active users not "moat"? Might have to pull out the "Haters gonna hate" like it's 2007
When they cost more to serve than they bring in, customer switching cost is vanishingly low, your competitor has revenue from other things and you don't.