9 ms·

In the last round of over-hyped pump and dump companies the usual thing was to list the company so the shares could be openly traded. This seems very much like

In the last round of over-hyped pump and dump companies the usual thing was to list the company so the shares could be openly traded. This seems very much like a "get out now" signal to everybody involved. Greater fool farming on an accelerated timeline.

mlazos 3y ago
lol what you’re describing is literally the free market. We just don’t know who the greater fool is until OpenAI booms more or busts.
mnky9800n 3y ago
Don't do it! They are about to raise 7 trillion dollars to build new ai chips! Now with more flavour but same great crunch!
JeremyNT 3y ago
I mean, watching from the outside, it's hard to guess why OpenAI would be so valuable. They were the first to market with their LLM chatbot, but zooming out that forced Google's hand in releasing their own, and there aren't any moats here other than "how much copyrighted data you're willing to train on." Eventually, OpenAI/MS will be the Bing to Google's, well, Google. It's one thing for early adopters to go and seek out ChatGPT, but Google has so many products already, there's no reason to think that anybody would switch to ChatGPT just for a chatbot if they're already using a Google app for something else.
dilyevsky 3y ago
Relax, this is likely just their retention strategy to keep employees that otherwise may jump ship and go work for meta/apple/google (who are publicly traded)
azemetre 3y ago
You're making it seem like OpenAI is a dumpster fire and not literally the only company that is MILES ahead of its competition. Not too mention they're supposedly a billion in yearly revenue. Not even Google can compete. It could also be a signal that the company recognizes that they would not be where they currently are without their workers. Maybe they're giving a reason for their workers to stay (become multi-millionaires overnight) and not go to their competitors.
- chaxor 3y ago
  To be fair, they are not miles ahead of everyone completely - they're good at shipping products. Other companies (such as deepmind/Google) have capabilities approximately on par, or sometimes better than OpenAI - they just aren't very good at making products out of their research.
  - rvz 3y ago
    Or OpenAI is just better at marketing / hyping their products and creating the illusion that they are ahead.
  - tomp 3y ago
    Noone has released a GPT-4 competitor after a year. I'd say that's quite a lead. Maybe this has changed now with new Gemini model, but still that means one year ahead of everyone.
    - chaxor 3y ago
      Again, that's a webapp product for the public - not state of the art research. These are very different things.
      - blackoil 3y ago
        Research without ability to create better models and products don't mean much. If the research is so good we should see somethings coming out of it.
- pk-protect-ai 3y ago
  They are not leading their competition in terms of technology; they are ahead in a public theater and as the first to market. The claims of "regulate us," "it's almost AGI and it's dangerous," and "let's put a moratorium on larger models" are all just hype, deceiving the public. They utilize the work of scientists and other companies worldwide without acknowledging their contributions. Certainly, they have done an impressive job, and the scientists and engineers working there deserve respect and recognition. However, they are not significantly ahead of current research. They are not even weeks ahead of research. The current landscape is a game of budgets, winning public opinion, and securing investments.
lumost 3y ago
It depends on ones trust in public markets. If a large firm is only held by a few parties, then the public markets provide little benefit to the firm or stakeholders as any significant share movement would require a private deal anyway.
jasonjmcghee 3y ago
A tender offer is not a "get out now" signal. It's often a "the company is healthy" signal.
- rvz 3y ago
  > It's often a "the company is healthy" signal. The same was said about Stripe. Imagine buying Stripe shares at a $96BN valuation when it is now down more than 50% from the peak. I would indeed sell some if I saw that extreme valuation of any private startup.
  - nl 3y ago
    Actually it’s back to $70B on secondary markets: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stripe-popping-off-secondary-markets-124035015.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stripe-popping-off-secondary-... Secondary markets always jump around because of lower liquidity. I’d wait until after IPO before making any conclusions there.
nl 3y ago
> This seems very much like a "get out now" signal to everybody involved. Greater fool farming on an accelerated timeline. If you were an early FB employee trying to diversify your wealth base in 2011[1] it turned out to have been a bad decision in retrospect but made sense then. It's easy to say in retrospect "greater fool" vs "bad decision" but right now it is reasonable to diversify risk and doesn't imply any bad faith. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/10/facebook-considers-staff-share-sale https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/10/facebook-...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hiddencost 3y ago
  Wrong. It was a good, principles decision with a surprising outcome.
  - outside415 3y ago
    you can keep your principles, I prefer to have captured more upside.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      A bad bet is still a bad bet if you win, though.
      - nl 3y ago
        The point of it being a good decision was that it wasn’t a bet: they were locking in a known as opposed to it being unknown. I guess you can say choosing not to play is a bet of some kind but it is a different class of bet I think.
        rightbyte 3y ago
        Sure. If you had better insight or wisdom than the market in general, ye, you can claim it was not a (bad) bet. Still probably bad to go essetially all in on one stock though, even if you are 90% sure? Personally, I thought that Facebook had peaked around IPO and would slowly go irrelevant.

mlazos 3y ago

lol what you’re describing is literally the free market. We just don’t know who the greater fool is until OpenAI booms more or busts.

mnky9800n 3y ago

Don't do it! They are about to raise 7 trillion dollars to build new ai chips! Now with more flavour but same great crunch!

JeremyNT 3y ago

I mean, watching from the outside, it's hard to guess why OpenAI would be so valuable. They were the first to market with their LLM chatbot, but zooming out that forced Google's hand in releasing their own, and there aren't any moats here other than "how much copyrighted data you're willing to train on." Eventually, OpenAI/MS will be the Bing to Google's, well, Google. It's one thing for early adopters to go and seek out ChatGPT, but Google has so many products already, there's no reason to think that anybody would switch to ChatGPT just for a chatbot if they're already using a Google app for something else.

dilyevsky 3y ago

Relax, this is likely just their retention strategy to keep employees that otherwise may jump ship and go work for meta/apple/google (who are publicly traded)

azemetre 3y ago

You're making it seem like OpenAI is a dumpster fire and not literally the only company that is MILES ahead of its competition. Not too mention they're supposedly a billion in yearly revenue. Not even Google can compete. It could also be a signal that the company recognizes that they would not be where they currently are without their workers. Maybe they're giving a reason for their workers to stay (become multi-millionaires overnight) and not go to their competitors.

chaxor 3y ago
To be fair, they are not miles ahead of everyone completely - they're good at shipping products. Other companies (such as deepmind/Google) have capabilities approximately on par, or sometimes better than OpenAI - they just aren't very good at making products out of their research.
- rvz 3y ago
  Or OpenAI is just better at marketing / hyping their products and creating the illusion that they are ahead.
- tomp 3y ago
  Noone has released a GPT-4 competitor after a year. I'd say that's quite a lead. Maybe this has changed now with new Gemini model, but still that means one year ahead of everyone.
  - chaxor 3y ago
    Again, that's a webapp product for the public - not state of the art research. These are very different things.
    - blackoil 3y ago
      Research without ability to create better models and products don't mean much. If the research is so good we should see somethings coming out of it.
pk-protect-ai 3y ago
They are not leading their competition in terms of technology; they are ahead in a public theater and as the first to market. The claims of "regulate us," "it's almost AGI and it's dangerous," and "let's put a moratorium on larger models" are all just hype, deceiving the public. They utilize the work of scientists and other companies worldwide without acknowledging their contributions. Certainly, they have done an impressive job, and the scientists and engineers working there deserve respect and recognition. However, they are not significantly ahead of current research. They are not even weeks ahead of research. The current landscape is a game of budgets, winning public opinion, and securing investments.

lumost 3y ago

It depends on ones trust in public markets. If a large firm is only held by a few parties, then the public markets provide little benefit to the firm or stakeholders as any significant share movement would require a private deal anyway.

jasonjmcghee 3y ago

A tender offer is not a "get out now" signal. It's often a "the company is healthy" signal.

rvz 3y ago
> It's often a "the company is healthy" signal. The same was said about Stripe. Imagine buying Stripe shares at a $96BN valuation when it is now down more than 50% from the peak. I would indeed sell some if I saw that extreme valuation of any private startup.
- nl 3y ago
  Actually it’s back to $70B on secondary markets: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stripe-popping-off-secondary-markets-124035015.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stripe-popping-off-secondary-... Secondary markets always jump around because of lower liquidity. I’d wait until after IPO before making any conclusions there.

nl 3y ago

> This seems very much like a "get out now" signal to everybody involved. Greater fool farming on an accelerated timeline. If you were an early FB employee trying to diversify your wealth base in 2011[1] it turned out to have been a bad decision in retrospect but made sense then. It's easy to say in retrospect "greater fool" vs "bad decision" but right now it is reasonable to diversify risk and doesn't imply any bad faith. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/10/facebook-considers-staff-share-sale https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/10/facebook-...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hiddencost 3y ago
Wrong. It was a good, principles decision with a surprising outcome.
- outside415 3y ago
  you can keep your principles, I prefer to have captured more upside.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    A bad bet is still a bad bet if you win, though.
    - nl 3y ago
      The point of it being a good decision was that it wasn’t a bet: they were locking in a known as opposed to it being unknown. I guess you can say choosing not to play is a bet of some kind but it is a different class of bet I think.
      - rightbyte 3y ago
        Sure. If you had better insight or wisdom than the market in general, ye, you can claim it was not a (bad) bet. Still probably bad to go essetially all in on one stock though, even if you are 90% sure? Personally, I thought that Facebook had peaked around IPO and would slowly go irrelevant.