3 ms·
Only if you ignore their losses. They are saying they are profitable when not counting their training costs and other expenses. That’s not a good sign at all
by dgellow 27d ago
Only if you ignore their losses. They are saying they are profitable when not counting their training costs and other expenses. That’s not a good sign at all
- jackb4040 26d agoHow can they exclude training costs?? How is that not fraud? At the exact same time they're literally saying they will never stop training unless the state bans all their competitors
- kridsdale1 26d agoThey aren’t a public company. GAAP does not apply. They can say whatever the fuck they want.
- jackb4040 25d agoBut they are trying very hard to become a public company as quickly as possible? Sure I guess it's literally true but people shouldn't treat it like it's normal. It's like a creepy 40-year-old announcing they're dating someone on their 18th birthday.
- Dylan16807 26d agoWhen we're looking at whether the company is "insolvent" then they definitely could stop training and it's worth checking if they would survive in that situation, at least for a while.
- jackb4040 25d agoI think the spending commitments they have already signed close that door too. They don't presently have the revenue to make those commitments regardless of opex; the only way they will be able to hit them is a massive increase in adoption over what we've seen so far. If they stop advancing the models it becomes really hard to see how that doesn't just immediately evaporate. I suspect any "pacing agreement" would include the state bailing out those commitments.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 26d agoThey can stop training at any time and make a profit by selling their existing models.