From https://www.theverge.com/command-line-newsletter/759897/sam-..., Sam Altman said:
> “If we didn’t pay for training, we’d be a very profitable company.”
replies(7):
> “If we didn’t pay for training, we’d be a very profitable company.”
There’s also a lot of comments in this thread who want LLM companies to fail for different reasons, so they’re projecting that wish on to imagined unit economics.
I’m having flashbacks to all of the conversations about Uber and claims that it was going to collapse as soon as the investment money ran out. Then Uber gradually transitioned to profitability and the critics moved to using the same shtick on AI companies.
Uber (and Lyft) didn't starve the alternatives: they were already severely malnourished. Also, they found a loophole to get around the medallion system in several cities, which taxi owners used in an incredibly anticompetitive fashion to prevent new competition.
Just because Uber used a shitty business practice to deliver the killing blow doesn't mean their competition were undeserving of the loss, or that the traditional taxis weren't without a lot of shady practices.
And lifetime profits for Uber are still at best break even which means that unless you timed the market perfectly, Uber probably lost you money as a shareholder.
Uber is just distorted in valuation by its presence in big US metro areas (which basically have no realistic transportation alternative).