[dead]
Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
91–100 of 345 posts
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
They need to financially engineer a good looking quarter beforehand. Perhaps Larry Ellison can cut them a nice quid pro quo for a few months to make OpenAI look profitable (like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal), although that's probably unlikely given the debt Oracle is taking on to build it's infra.
> like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal I understand the scepticism around Google's deal with SpaceX, given the former holds a stake in the latter. But Anthropic buying SpaceX's compute doesn't have any related-party smell to it. That genuinely looks like SpaceX having cornered some valuable compute.
I'm actually talking about both. WSJ publishes Anthropic artificial profitability. Days later the reason for the profitability appears in SpaceX S-1; it's compute costs were artificially suppressed. Both are going public. It's a quid pro quo.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#93[dead]
Why do you say this? It's OK to make such a bold statement, but you gotta share how you came to this conclusion. This helps with a good discussion.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal I understand the scepticism around Google's deal with SpaceX, given the former holds a stake in the latter. But Anthropic buying SpaceX's compute doesn't have any related-party smell to it. That genuinely looks like SpaceX having cornered some valuable compute.
Google owns 14% Anthropic and 6% xAI. When Anthropic spends on xAI, it benefits Google. When google spends on xAI, it benefits Google. When xAI spends on Google, believe it or not, that benefits Google. This is how a Ponzi -style circular financing scheme typically works.
> When Anthropic spends on xAI, it benefits Google
Unless Google is directing these transactions, this is not a novel issue. (We see a similar effect with mutual funds owning most companies [1]. It's a weak effect.)
> This is how a Ponzi -style circular financing scheme typically works
No. It's potential conflicts of interest. It's not circular financing. Circular financing follows the cash. When NVIDIA invests in OpenAI so OpenAI can buy NVIDIA chips, that is circular financing.
[1] https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/the-rise-of-the-mutua...
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#95> We have not decided on timing yet; it may be a while because there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company. Presumably those things were harder as a charity/non-profit.
They need to financially engineer a good looking quarter beforehand. Perhaps Larry Ellison can cut them a nice quid pro quo for a few months to make OpenAI look profitable (like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal), although that's probably unlikely given the debt Oracle is taking on to build it's infra.
Anthropic basically did that by getting two months of free compute from SpaceX. As I recall, this is how they were able to claim that they were profitable. But in reality, they are only profitable for those two months.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're IPOing a commercial subsidiary of OpenAI so that it can donate even more money to the parent nonprofit. (Actually the subsidiary is everything and the nonprofit is a do-nothing fig leaf but the IRS and Congress seem to not care enough to stop them.)
Checks and balances dear sirs and madams, checks and balances. Excepts apparently it meant cheques used to top up account balances.
[deleted]
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#97I have a feeling that as soon as OpenAI and Anthropic stocks are up for grabs, the market will implode.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#98I don’t get what’s the point of non-profits if you can IPO them. How does that make any sense?
The corporation selling shares is just primarily owned by the non profit
The corporation selling shares is subject to normal corporate tax regime
The real answer to your question is that non profits can own shares, and there is no legal difference between passive investment of other publicly traded companies and highly consolidated shares of a private company. In the US it is seen as merely happenstance that we have such a liquid market where the shares themselves can rapidly change in value and create profits, but there is nothing controversial about that.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like the SpaceX/Anthropic deal I understand the scepticism around Google's deal with SpaceX, given the former holds a stake in the latter. But Anthropic buying SpaceX's compute doesn't have any related-party smell to it. That genuinely looks like SpaceX having cornered some valuable compute.
I'm actually talking about both. WSJ publishes Anthropic artificial profitability. Days later the reason for the profitability appears in SpaceX S-1; it's compute costs were artificially suppressed. Both are going public. It's a quid pro quo.
> It's a quid pro quo
This is a reasonable accusation! It doesn't make a lot of sense–the Journal article is worth a hell of lot more than SpaceX referencing Anthropic's profitability. And we have zero evidence for it–one could raise this accusation against any compute partner Anthropic were to buy from.
Re: Confidential submission of draft S-1 to the SEC
#100[dead]