3 ms·
> You have way less transformative companies being valued north of $100b. Transformative maybe, but valuation shouldn't be about transformative, it should be a
by boxed 3y ago
> You have way less transformative companies being valued north of $100b.
Transformative maybe, but valuation shouldn't be about transformative, it should be about profitable. This is a lot more doubtful.
- aurareturn 3y ago>Transformative maybe, but valuation shouldn't be about transformative, it should be about profitable. My assumption is that LLMs would be ubiquitous right now, just GPT4, not even GPT5, if inference cost is low enough. Therefore, I expect the market for LLMs to expand exponentially in the future once inference cost is solved.
- ChatGTP 3y agoexponentially
- boxed 3y agoOk.. and? Why would that translate to these kinds of valuations? The open source models seem pretty close behind. Close enough to wipe out a huge chunk of any potential valuation at the very least.
- aurareturn 3y ago>Ok.. and? Why would that translate to these kinds of valuations? I don't know. No one knows. It's just a thought. They could be on the verge of GPT5 and will continue to dominate for years to come? They have developed an extremely cost effective LLM delivery platform that open source can't compete against? They have a huge backlog of customers that they can't serve yet because of AI chip shortage?
- boxed 3y agoWell that's pretty much the definition of a bubble right there.
- zone411 3y agoIt's about future profitability, though. That's speculative, of course, but that's why the growth rate matters.
- boxed 3y agoSure. That's why it's (arguably) a bubble: it's speculation about the future. But the pattern of history is pretty clear on this: it's not the first movers that capture the value. In this specific case the value seems to be captured quite well by open source models too.