←back to thread

We're Joining OpenAI

(www.alexcodes.app)
192 points liurenju | 10 comments | 03 Sep 25 18:38 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
CyberMacGyver ◴[03 Sep 25 20:45 UTC] No.45120228[source]▶
At this rate it’s better to start a company and get aquihired vs applying and getting hired.

Seems like OpenAI speed ran through the Facebook phase and are out of ideas

replies(5): >>45120368 #>>45120639 #>>45123216 #>>45124631 #>>45125345 #
kridsdale3 ◴[03 Sep 25 21:00 UTC] No.45120368[source]▶
Au contraire, based on their recent hires, they're just beginning their Facebook phase. Expect to see a lot of ads 2 years from now, and expect to see a LOT of money being made by the company a year after that.

If they can maintain runway until then.

replies(13): >>45120439 #>>45120462 #>>45120737 #>>45120923 #>>45121451 #>>45123833 #>>45124176 #>>45124207 #>>45124568 #>>45125196 #>>45127156 #>>45128868 #>>45129566 #
vessenes ◴[04 Sep 25 05:19 UTC] No.45123833[source]▶
oAI rev exceeds $1b per month right now.
replies(1): >>45124075 #
1. gloosx ◴[04 Sep 25 06:05 UTC] No.45124075[source]▶
still not profitable? All this revenue is burned on compute
replies(2): >>45124199 #>>45124286 #
2. mrklol ◴[04 Sep 25 06:28 UTC] No.45124199[source]▶
Doesn’t have to be profitable atm
replies(1): >>45124329 #
3. baq ◴[04 Sep 25 06:41 UTC] No.45124286[source]▶
Individual models are probably profitable because why not.

Not staying behind is the expensive part.

replies(1): >>45124363 #
4. gloosx ◴[04 Sep 25 06:50 UTC] No.45124329[source]▶
For sure. Needs to drain as much money as possible from Microsoft first. I approve!
replies(1): >>45125285 #
5. gloosx ◴[04 Sep 25 06:58 UTC] No.45124363[source]▶
Expensive part is providing the services at loss to get the biggest part of the market, which is the current state of affairs. At some point the market leader will emerge and it will price things according to the actual cost of running this thing + markup, and ALL efforts would be going into squeezing as much profit as possible from the leading position. At the same time usability and quality would not be priority anymore. We are enjoying the late-capitalism at it's peak here.
replies(2): >>45124685 #>>45125025 #
6. baq ◴[04 Sep 25 07:44 UTC] No.45124685{3}[source]▶
I'm just saying what Anthropic is saying: individual models are printing money. The problem is all the capital needed to get the next model before the previous ones are obsolete; investors capitalize the business because the future models are expected to print even more money, at least a few months ago. It's increasingly obvious that the new models won't print as much money as expected to justify the expenses, but if they all stopped training today they'd be swimming in cash in a couple years.
replies(2): >>45124742 #>>45129417 #
7. gloosx ◴[04 Sep 25 07:52 UTC] No.45124742{4}[source]▶
>if they all stopped training today they'd be swimming in cash in a couple years.

If they stopped training, then the data cutoff date is one year farther each year? How do you make money from model which is stale on data and doesn't include any recent stuff?

8. JumpCrisscross ◴[04 Sep 25 08:35 UTC] No.45125025{3}[source]▶
> providing the services at loss to get the biggest part of the market

Would note that market share confers revenue, users and data. The last is uniquley valuable for LLM builders.

9. tempodox ◴[04 Sep 25 09:24 UTC] No.45125285{3}[source]▶
Be careful what you wish for if you use anything from MS. Further enshittification will be mercyless.
10. LtWorf ◴[04 Sep 25 16:58 UTC] No.45129417{4}[source]▶
1. They can't stop training

2. I don't trust them anyway that without training they are making money.