8 ms·

> if they don't make the numbers make sense soon then I don't see things ending well for OpenAI. This is pretty much obvious just from the valuations. The wi

> if they don't make the numbers make sense soon then I don't see things ending well for OpenAI. This is pretty much obvious just from the valuations. The wild bull case where they invent a revolutionary superintelligence would clearly value them in the trillions, so the fact that they're presently valued an order of magnitude less implies that it is viewed as an unlikely scenario (and reasonably so, in my opinion).

bpodgursky 2y ago
It actually represents the scenario where they invent a revolutionary superintelligence that doesn't kill the VCs investing in the firm, and allows them enough control to take profit. In the top range ASI capacity outcomes, the sand god does not return trillions to the VCs. This actually represents only the narrow "aligned" range of AI outcomes, so it makes sense it's a small one.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Judging by the ones I have met, the VCs probably believe that any kind of superintelligence would by definition be something that would like them and be like them. If it wasn’t on their side they would take it as incontrovertible proof that it wasn’t a superintelligence.
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    I am not sure who you have met, but I have mostly talked to VCs with the same range of optimism and concerns regarding AI as normal technologists.
  - sally_glance 2y ago
    Thanks, made me giggle because it rings true! But what if... it's training actually caused it to acquire similar motivation? (Don't want to think about that too much but man just imagine... A superintelligence with Sam Altman mindset)
tboyd47 2y ago
That assumes that the revolutionary superintelligence is willing to give away its economic value by the trillions. (Revolutionary superintelligences are known to be supergenerous too)
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  I assume it needs super amounts of hardware and super amounts of energy. No one gets a free ride not even superintelligences or people working for health insurance.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    I would put odds on whatever it is generating the revenue having the leverage at the table. 'We pay your salary which allows you to eat' is a poor argument when the opposing one is 'without me your company would be losing money'.
  - tboyd47 2y ago
    That's true. Thankfully, superintelligences are also poor at negotiating and projecting their own income, so you can still make a handsome profit off of them.
tptacek 2y ago
You don't need science fiction to find the bull case for OpenAI. You just have to think it stands to be the "next" Google, which feels increasingly plausible. Google's current market capitalization is in the trillions.
- azinman2 2y ago
  In 2023 Google had $307.39B in revenue and $24B in profit last quarter (suggesting ~100B in profit this year). Meanwhile OpenAI is losing money and making no where near these sums.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Facebook got all the way to an IPO with business fundamentals so bad that after the IPO, Paul Graham wrote a letter to all the then-current YC companies warning them that the Facebook stink was going to foul the whole VC market in the following years. Meta is now worth something like 1.4T.
    - yifanl 2y ago
      Facebook made it out by committing click fraud against advertisers on a massive scale, which I don't see as a viable path for sama (even ignoring any legal concerns) considering that openAI isn't a platform company.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Look, I don't care. At some point we're just arguing about the validity of big tech investing. I don't invest money in tech companies. I don't have a strong opinion about Facebook, or, for that matter, about OpenAI. I'm just saying, you don't need a sci-fi story about AGI to see why people would plow this much money into them. That's all.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
epolanski 2y ago
But even if they invent revolutionary super intelligence, big if, what's stopping other companies to follow suit? Talent between these companies moves fast, some start their own. Hell even open source models are nowadays better than the best models this billions burning company had just 6 months ago. I'm lost at what is the moat here, because I really don't see it and I don't believe any of these companies has any advantage at all.

bpodgursky 2y ago

It actually represents the scenario where they invent a revolutionary superintelligence that doesn't kill the VCs investing in the firm, and allows them enough control to take profit. In the top range ASI capacity outcomes, the sand god does not return trillions to the VCs. This actually represents only the narrow "aligned" range of AI outcomes, so it makes sense it's a small one.

seanhunter 2y ago
Judging by the ones I have met, the VCs probably believe that any kind of superintelligence would by definition be something that would like them and be like them. If it wasn’t on their side they would take it as incontrovertible proof that it wasn’t a superintelligence.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  I am not sure who you have met, but I have mostly talked to VCs with the same range of optimism and concerns regarding AI as normal technologists.
- sally_glance 2y ago
  Thanks, made me giggle because it rings true! But what if... it's training actually caused it to acquire similar motivation? (Don't want to think about that too much but man just imagine... A superintelligence with Sam Altman mindset)

tboyd47 2y ago

That assumes that the revolutionary superintelligence is willing to give away its economic value by the trillions. (Revolutionary superintelligences are known to be supergenerous too)

fnordpiglet 2y ago
I assume it needs super amounts of hardware and super amounts of energy. No one gets a free ride not even superintelligences or people working for health insurance.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  I would put odds on whatever it is generating the revenue having the leverage at the table. 'We pay your salary which allows you to eat' is a poor argument when the opposing one is 'without me your company would be losing money'.
- tboyd47 2y ago
  That's true. Thankfully, superintelligences are also poor at negotiating and projecting their own income, so you can still make a handsome profit off of them.

tptacek 2y ago

You don't need science fiction to find the bull case for OpenAI. You just have to think it stands to be the "next" Google, which feels increasingly plausible. Google's current market capitalization is in the trillions.

azinman2 2y ago
In 2023 Google had $307.39B in revenue and $24B in profit last quarter (suggesting ~100B in profit this year). Meanwhile OpenAI is losing money and making no where near these sums.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Facebook got all the way to an IPO with business fundamentals so bad that after the IPO, Paul Graham wrote a letter to all the then-current YC companies warning them that the Facebook stink was going to foul the whole VC market in the following years. Meta is now worth something like 1.4T.
  - yifanl 2y ago
    Facebook made it out by committing click fraud against advertisers on a massive scale, which I don't see as a viable path for sama (even ignoring any legal concerns) considering that openAI isn't a platform company.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Look, I don't care. At some point we're just arguing about the validity of big tech investing. I don't invest money in tech companies. I don't have a strong opinion about Facebook, or, for that matter, about OpenAI. I'm just saying, you don't need a sci-fi story about AGI to see why people would plow this much money into them. That's all.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

epolanski 2y ago

But even if they invent revolutionary super intelligence, big if, what's stopping other companies to follow suit? Talent between these companies moves fast, some start their own. Hell even open source models are nowadays better than the best models this billions burning company had just 6 months ago. I'm lost at what is the moat here, because I really don't see it and I don't believe any of these companies has any advantage at all.