4 ms·

OpenAI has no technical moat (others can do what they do), generate content, all have the same data. OpenAI does not expect to be cash-flow positive until 2029

by nabla9 11mo ago

OpenAI has no technical moat (others can do what they do), generate content, all have the same data. OpenAI does not expect to be cash-flow positive until 2029. When no new capital comes in, it can't continue. OpenAI can's survive any kind of price competition.

aurareturn 11mo ago
They consistently have the best or second best models. They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users. Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. There's price competition right now. They're still surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most likely to survive.
- nabla9 11mo ago
  > Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor money drying out there is no bubble.
  - aurareturn 11mo ago
    I think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.
    - arunabha 11mo ago
      Clearly, a lot of people here disagree with you. Doesn't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech industry.
      - aurareturn 11mo ago
        The mass is usually wrong on predicting these kinds of events. I don't see why HN is any different than Reddit group think.
        Auracle 11mo ago
        Nobody was predicting for the dotcom or the financial crisis bubbles. The fact that everyone and their grandma is calling this a bubble makes me think that it simply can’t be.
      - consp 11mo ago
        Bitcoin is going to be the next universal payment system anytime now...
        Auracle 11mo ago
        Weird example to trot out as a bubble when at any point in its history, if you held for a few years or so you’d be pretty far ahead on your investment. It clearly shows people are awful at calling out bubbles.
    - gizajob 11mo ago
      More like 1998
    - lizknope 11mo ago
      I asked a few weeks ago if we are at the Pets.com stage of the bubble yet.
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  What if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?
- NumberCruncher 11mo ago
  They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".
  - aurareturn 11mo ago
    They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world. I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?
    - consp 11mo ago
      Meta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.
      - aurareturn 11mo ago
        Given that OpenAI has publicly stated that they're working on monetizing free users (ads), I think they can make ads targeting as good as Meta can. This is why Meta is all in on AI by the way. With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.
        DeathArrow 11mo ago
        >With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire. People are on Facebook to interact with other human beings, not LLMs. People won't leave Facebook to use ChatGPT.
        11mo ago
- jcgrillo 11mo ago
  > They consistently have the best or second best models. This is the problem with your original argument. It assumes that having a "good model" (e.g. one that performs well on some benchmarks) has somehow to do with something in the real world. It doesn't. If you can show that it does, your thesis might have at least a glimmer of credibility. The idea that a chatbot will somehow displace an operating system is the kind of absurdity that follows from making this error.

by nabla9 11mo ago

aurareturn 11mo ago

They consistently have the best or second best models. They have infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active users. Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. There's price competition right now. They're still surviving. If there is price competition, they're the most likely to survive.

nabla9 11mo ago
> Investors are lining up to give them money. When they IPO, they'll easily be worth over $1 trillion. Your premise is that there is no bubble. We are talking about what happens when bubble bursts. Without investor money drying out there is no bubble.
- aurareturn 11mo ago
  I think we are in 1995 of the dotcom bubble for AI.
  - arunabha 11mo ago
    Clearly, a lot of people here disagree with you. Doesn't mean you cannot be right, but in general, the HN crowd is a pretty good predictor of the trends in the tech industry.
    - aurareturn 11mo ago
      The mass is usually wrong on predicting these kinds of events. I don't see why HN is any different than Reddit group think.
      - Auracle 11mo ago
        Nobody was predicting for the dotcom or the financial crisis bubbles. The fact that everyone and their grandma is calling this a bubble makes me think that it simply can’t be.
    - consp 11mo ago
      Bitcoin is going to be the next universal payment system anytime now...
      - Auracle 11mo ago
        Weird example to trot out as a bubble when at any point in its history, if you held for a few years or so you’d be pretty far ahead on your investment. It clearly shows people are awful at calling out bubbles.
  - gizajob 11mo ago
    More like 1998
  - lizknope 11mo ago
    I asked a few weeks ago if we are at the Pets.com stage of the bubble yet.
jimbokun 11mo ago
What if investors stop giving them money before they IPO?
NumberCruncher 11mo ago
They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. Even worse, they train their model(s) on the interactions of those non-paying customers, what makes the model(s) less useful for paying customers. It's kind of a "you can not charge for a Porsche if you only satisfy the needs of a typical Dacia owner".
- aurareturn 11mo ago
  They have <a really expensive> infrastructure that serves 800 million monthly active <but non-paying> users. I don't pay Meta any money too. Yet, Meta is one of the most profitable companies in the world. I give more of my data to OpenAI than to Meta. ChatGPT knows so much about me. Don't you think they can easily monetize their 800 million (close to 1 billion by now) users?
  - consp 11mo ago
    Meta has the giant advantage that other people interact with your data. I think that is widely more valuable than what chat engines have.
    - aurareturn 11mo ago
      Given that OpenAI has publicly stated that they're working on monetizing free users (ads), I think they can make ads targeting as good as Meta can. This is why Meta is all in on AI by the way. With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire.
      - DeathArrow 11mo ago
        >With nearly 1 billion users, ChatGPT is a huge threat to Meta's ad empire. People are on Facebook to interact with other human beings, not LLMs. People won't leave Facebook to use ChatGPT.
        11mo ago
jcgrillo 11mo ago
> They consistently have the best or second best models. This is the problem with your original argument. It assumes that having a "good model" (e.g. one that performs well on some benchmarks) has somehow to do with something in the real world. It doesn't. If you can show that it does, your thesis might have at least a glimmer of credibility. The idea that a chatbot will somehow displace an operating system is the kind of absurdity that follows from making this error.