top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

I'm guessing the lost funds are bleeding out to energy concerns. Correct? Asides from brief construction contracts for data centers, I'm unsure how one makes such large sums of money disappear.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    From what I understood it’s not really money “lost”, it’s that the company was valued a certain amount and, with a bit of that hype dying down, it’s now valued 80 Billion less.

    I’m not an expert on… pretty much any argument in this thread though, so if someone more knowledgeable can chime in I’d appreciate too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Still supposed to be valued 1.500.000 Million dollars. Lol.

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 3 hours ago
    [–] 21 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    Goddamm... This could easily have housed every man, woman, and child in this country. But no, no free housing while we squander wealth with our stupid ideas.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

    Billion is officially the new million.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago

    this goes in line with thier aggresive pandering to the govt to be used mass surveillance.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 15 hours ago

    I'm doing my part by constantly asking chatgpt questions without ever logging in or paying them money. Eventually they'll all go belly up and maybe we can ditch this shit.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

    80 billion could have bought a whole lot of Chinese EV's to resale and they could have made a profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    A billion here, a billion there. Over some time it might become quite a sum.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Repeating the DotCom burst.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 17 hours ago
    [–] 28 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

    $8B real loss on $16B revenue. ($72B is a bondholder gain (accounting loss) from conversion). $9B in training costs not counted as loss, even though it is worthless whenever next model version is released.

    $561B in forced spending on compute over next 10 years, with $750B total compute costs lined up. Structural losses are baked in for a few years.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    even though it is worthless whenever next model version is released.

    For most version releases I actually doubt that, I'm pretty sure they just keep training the model and release checkpoints every few months. Architectural changes, however, will indeed invalidate the previously trained models, and occasionally they have to do that to keep up with the competition.

    But if you do architectural changes even just once a year, that means you'd have to depreciate those training costs over just that one year to be truthful. Meaning they might as well be losses rather than depreciating capital investments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 39 minutes ago

    There is a genuine "training corpus" that is an accumulated asset and grows and feeds new models. The vast majority of training cost, that should be expensed, is the training time compute. Neither of these are expensed. There was about 13 major US model releases in September. At least 7 of these replaced a 1 month old previous model family. Open AI gpt sol went from 5.6 to 6 to 6.1 in about 2 months.

    Fast model releases not only lock in structural losses, they juice revenue growth illusions. Model use rate generally drops by 66% 4 weeks after release, because of competition, and a surge of use on release for evaluation.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

    No wonder they're panicking so hard over open weight Chinese models

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

    I firmly believe OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., will all eventually collapse under their own weight, meanwhile open weight distillations of their models will become the de facto standard for AI usage. There's just no way they can ever make up all the money they've burned in R&D, especially when distillations are right behind them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (1 child)

    they have to pay off those datacenters somehow, the only one whos partially laughing to the bank is jensen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    What happens to Nvidia when the AI bubble pops though? They will lose so much revenue. Now they should be perfectly sustainable still given that they can sell GPUs to the same customers they used to. But will shareholders like that?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 18 hours ago

    i wish them ruin, you made my day

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 19 hours ago (9 children)

    Idk man, to me, it feels like we are further from AGI than fusion reactors actually being hooked up to the grid, considering LLMs are still just glorified autocorrects, needing a ton of prompt injections from their providers. And yet, the AI companies make it seem like it's right around the corner (obviously, because $$$), whereas to me it feels like we are still at least 50 years away. Maybe AGI will be the next fusion generator chase.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 44 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

    Why haven't they just asked Claude how to make money with their business model? /s

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

    They have.

    1. Wait for excited CEOs to fire all their staff.

    2. Crank up the prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    2 only works if regulatory capture in place to prevent cheaper competition from open models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    That's why they keep trying to play the "AI is so dangerous" narrative and why you keep hearing about "rogue AI agents" which in reality someone had to instruct to break the law, and they probably used some of their no-guardrails internal-use models (so Claude Mythos rather than Fable).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Claude Mythos and Fable are the exact same model, the branding only reflects which one has more restrictive classifiers in front of it during deployment. But the weights are identical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

    If any of these AI companies IPO, you could make a lot of money shorting them!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 hours ago*

    Spacex really changed the game, forcing the markets to load up that ish in our 401(k)'s.

    Next, when Musk threatens to "gift" every child spacex stock in their Trump accounts, it's another form of using the general public as an exit , well artificially propping up the moonshot companies stock values.

    It is a Master Class in forcing volatility into the financial lives of not just retail investors but Main Street people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago

    In old days, but there are so many random retail investors in the market now keeping garbage stocks afloat. Same reason why Tesla is so over valued and why GameStop won’t die.

    Nowadays, stocks are made of fairy dust and wishes. It’s all nonsense when fanboys get involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 22 hours ago

    Stop_trying_to_make_AI_happen.jpg

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 22 hours ago

    "A MINOR SETBACK ON THE PATH TO THE SINGULARITY!" -

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›