5 ms·

I wonder what the 100B of value is here? The researchers (who may quit and go work for someone else at any moment? They have shown that they have zero commitme

I wonder what the 100B of value is here? The researchers (who may quit and go work for someone else at any moment? They have shown that they have zero commitment/loyalty to OpenAI from their recent shenanigans and have shown their hand - i.e. that they would jump ship immediately given the right conditions)? Or is there actually a viable revenue stream here that justifies that valuation? Last I heard their API revenue was chicken feed. To paraquote Google, I feel like there is no moat here... But maybe I am wrong?

ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
Being the top AI company on the planet? With a model out in public that is far ahead of everyone else? 100M in subscription revenue? 100B is going to look cheap in a few years
- jgalt212 3y ago
  from a governance perspective, the place is a house of cards, though.
  - CaptainOfCoit 3y ago
    from a governance perspective, which place that VCs invest in doesn't seem like a house of cards? Building houses of cards is the standard practice in startup-world.
  - ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
    its really not, thats propaganda. this company truly created the current AI revolution
- StrLght 3y ago
  > 100M in subscription revenue? 100B is going to look cheap in a few years I'd say that's a hot take. 100M in revenue is absolutely nothing for a company valued at 100B. What about net income? Also, what about net income, if there's no AGI or at least significant advances in coming years?
  - golergka 3y ago
    How fast did they go from 0 to 100M, and what proportion of their efforts was on product and marketing vs pure research?
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  It’s not that useful to have the best model on the planet in an era where nobody knows how to monetize the best model. You have to have the best model until the profits start rolling in, which could be several years.
  - ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
    This is a contrarian opinion and probably wrong. If you think current AI models are not economically viable, you need to reexamine your world view
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      Could you elaborate a bit?
      - elorant 3y ago
        Every company out there, from the smallest to the Fortune top-500 ones, could utilize a language model. You can use it for pretty much everything: marketing, sales, data analysis, customer support, market research, product development— you name it. Given a few years, it will become clearer what it can be used for, and their revenues could reach dozens of billions. Meanwhile, if they can manufacture their own chips, which is evidently their goal considering the significant investment, they could leave their competitors years behind.
        mattlondon 3y ago
        Most of the other players have their own hardware too though - Google, Amazon, MS at least, and who knows what apple is up to (if anything ). Are OpenAIs chips going to be years ahead of those guys, or even Nvidia? I am sceptical.
        elorant 3y ago
        They don't need to be years ahead. Availability and ideally a lower cost is the goal.
dleeftink 3y ago
> zero commitment/loyalty Ah yes, those pesky researchers and their loyalty. Is it truly that astonishing that current valuations may have something to do with their, I don't know, .. value?
- mattlondon 3y ago
  Well that is my point. Get 100B valuation and funding, everyone awards themselves 10mn bonuses then quit the next day to set up LibreAI or something and all that investment money has just dried up - there is nothing actually there if you are just investing in staff who have shown they'll just leave at the slightest provocation (and presumably have contracts that allow what we saw with the recent debacle to actually happen - i.e. 99% of staff just move to a new employer and carry on like nothing happened and legally that is all 100% ok (both employment law but also IP law etc, they can just keep working on the same stuff)) If there is no "moat" to prevent someone just starting a competitor on Monday morning and instantly having the same capabilities/technology/model/weights, what are you actually investing in, apart from hype?

ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago

Being the top AI company on the planet? With a model out in public that is far ahead of everyone else? 100M in subscription revenue? 100B is going to look cheap in a few years

jgalt212 3y ago
from a governance perspective, the place is a house of cards, though.
- CaptainOfCoit 3y ago
  from a governance perspective, which place that VCs invest in doesn't seem like a house of cards? Building houses of cards is the standard practice in startup-world.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
  its really not, thats propaganda. this company truly created the current AI revolution
StrLght 3y ago
> 100M in subscription revenue? 100B is going to look cheap in a few years I'd say that's a hot take. 100M in revenue is absolutely nothing for a company valued at 100B. What about net income? Also, what about net income, if there's no AGI or at least significant advances in coming years?
- golergka 3y ago
  How fast did they go from 0 to 100M, and what proportion of their efforts was on product and marketing vs pure research?
matthewdgreen 3y ago
It’s not that useful to have the best model on the planet in an era where nobody knows how to monetize the best model. You have to have the best model until the profits start rolling in, which could be several years.
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
  This is a contrarian opinion and probably wrong. If you think current AI models are not economically viable, you need to reexamine your world view
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    Could you elaborate a bit?
    - elorant 3y ago
      Every company out there, from the smallest to the Fortune top-500 ones, could utilize a language model. You can use it for pretty much everything: marketing, sales, data analysis, customer support, market research, product development— you name it. Given a few years, it will become clearer what it can be used for, and their revenues could reach dozens of billions. Meanwhile, if they can manufacture their own chips, which is evidently their goal considering the significant investment, they could leave their competitors years behind.
      - mattlondon 3y ago
        Most of the other players have their own hardware too though - Google, Amazon, MS at least, and who knows what apple is up to (if anything ). Are OpenAIs chips going to be years ahead of those guys, or even Nvidia? I am sceptical.
        elorant 3y ago
        They don't need to be years ahead. Availability and ideally a lower cost is the goal.

dleeftink 3y ago

> zero commitment/loyalty Ah yes, those pesky researchers and their loyalty. Is it truly that astonishing that current valuations may have something to do with their, I don't know, .. value?

mattlondon 3y ago
Well that is my point. Get 100B valuation and funding, everyone awards themselves 10mn bonuses then quit the next day to set up LibreAI or something and all that investment money has just dried up - there is nothing actually there if you are just investing in staff who have shown they'll just leave at the slightest provocation (and presumably have contracts that allow what we saw with the recent debacle to actually happen - i.e. 99% of staff just move to a new employer and carry on like nothing happened and legally that is all 100% ok (both employment law but also IP law etc, they can just keep working on the same stuff)) If there is no "moat" to prevent someone just starting a competitor on Monday morning and instantly having the same capabilities/technology/model/weights, what are you actually investing in, apart from hype?