OpenAI completes deal that values company at $157B

Post by moralestapia » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 6:52 PM UTC

diffeomorphism wrote: post #65

moralestapia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does. "ChatGPT", GPT, "OpenAI", etc... are strong brands associated with it. Edit: You can downvote me all you want, I have plenty of karma to spare. This is OpenAI's strongest moat, whether people like it or not.

GPT is a generic tool name. Those moats are pretty weak. People use Apple Idioticnaming or MS Copilot or Google whatever, which transparently use some interchangeable model in the background. Compared to chatgpt these might not be as smart, but have much easier access to OS level context. In other words: Good luck defending this moat against OS manufacturers with dominant market shares.

Post by throwup238 » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 7:01 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46

jsheard wrote: post #29

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?

The funny thing about that statement is that if it actually does become true, all of those VCs (and Altman himself), whose job is ostensibly to find the optimal uses for capital, would immediately become obsolete. Heck, the whole idea that capitalism could just continue along in its current form if true AGI existed is pretty laughable.

Post by plorkyeran » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 7:06 PM UTC

_1 wrote: post #69

kredd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For every Theranos and WeWork, there’s Uber, Coinbase, AirBnb. I know they didn’t raise as much as OpenAI, but it wasn’t insignificant amount of money burning before they became profitable with large market caps. It’s very strange times we’re living in.

Have any of those become profitable?

Post by baq » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 7:28 PM UTC

throwup238 wrote: post #73

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about that statement is that if it actually does become true, all of those VCs (and Altman himself), whose job is ostensibly to find the optimal uses for capital, would immediately become obsolete. Heck, the whole idea that capitalism could just continue along in its current form if true AGI existed is pretty laughable.

The problems with central planning that capitalism ostensibly solves don't exist because of a lack of intelligence, but due to the impedance mismatch between the planner and the people. Making the central planner an AGI would just make it worse, because there's no guarantee that just because it's (super)intelligent it can empathize with its wards and optimize for their needs and desires.

Post by giarc » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 8:49 PM UTC

jsheard wrote: post #29

cs702 wrote: post #4

Given the high risk, investors likely want a shot of earning at least a 10x return. $157 billion x 10 = $1.57 trillion, greater than META's current market capitalization. Greater returns would require even more aggressive assumptions. For example, a 30x return would require OpenAI to become the world's most valuable company by a large margin. All I can say to the investors, with the best of hopes, is: Good luck! You'…

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?