←back to thread

How OpenAI uses complex and circular deals to fuel its multibillion-dollar rise

(www.nytimes.com)
387 points reaperducer | 3 comments | 31 Oct 25 13:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SubiculumCode ◴[31 Oct 25 14:14 UTC] No.45772210[source]▶
Given that AI is a national security matter now, I'd expect the U.S.A to step in and rescue certain companies in the event of a crash. However, I'd give higher chances to NVIDIA than OpenAI. Weights are easily transferrable and the expertise is in the engineers, but ability to continue making advanced chips is not as easily transferred.
replies(4): >>45772241 #>>45772328 #>>45772343 #>>45772651 #
philipwhiuk ◴[31 Oct 25 14:27 UTC] No.45772328[source]▶
If they're too-important-to-fail they're too important not to be broken up or nationalised.
replies(3): >>45772693 #>>45773573 #>>45774853 #
whimsicalism ◴[31 Oct 25 16:00 UTC] No.45773573[source]▶
I’m curious if those of you calling for nationalization have worked for the government or a state-owned enterprise like Amtrak. People should witness the effects of long-term public sector ownership on productivity and effectiveness in a workplace.
replies(2): >>45774072 #>>45774782 #
saulpw ◴[31 Oct 25 16:47 UTC] No.45774072[source]▶
Yeah, like IBM and Intel and GE and GM are shining examples of how effectively the private sector runs companies. Maybe large enterprises are by their nature inefficient. Maybe productivity isn't the best metric for a utility. We could, for instance, prioritize resiliency, longevity, accessibility, and environmental concerns.
replies(1): >>45774099 #
1. whimsicalism ◴[31 Oct 25 16:50 UTC] No.45774099[source]▶
Even those problematic companies exemplify the difference: when enterprises are mismanaged and fail, capital is reallocated away from them.
replies(1): >>45775190 #
2. saulpw ◴[31 Oct 25 18:34 UTC] No.45775190[source]▶
The US government just allocated $10b towards Intel, and bailed out GM in the past. So what you said is clearly not the case. Now we have publicly-funded private management that is failing. At least if they were publicly owned and managed outright, they wouldn't be gutted by executives prioritizing quarterly profits.
replies(1): >>45775367 #
3. whimsicalism ◴[31 Oct 25 18:51 UTC] No.45775367[source]▶
Executives should prioritize producing things people are willing to pay money for cheaply. If there is a bias towards short-termism, that is a governance problem that should be addressed.

I agree that the US taking stakes or picking winners is bad, I don't think it follows that nationalization is the solution.