[max51]

The "circular investment" is mostly start up companies using their stocks instead of cash to pay for server hardware and cloud computing. There is a few extra steps in between that make things look weird and convoluted, but the end results is really just big companies giving hardware and getting shares of ai companies in exchange for it.

[dangus]

I think you’re just describing how it’s circular.

It’s like Toys R Us not having enough money to pay Mattel for Barbie dolls and telling Mattel they can have partial ownership of the company if they just supply them with some more toys.

But the problem is that Toys R Us is spending $15, 20, or maybe even $50 (who knows?) to sell a $10 toy.

Toys R Us continues selling toys faster and faster despite a lack of profit, making Mattel even more dependent on Toys R Us as a customer. It blows up the bubble where a more natural course of action would be for Toys R Us to go bankrupt or scale back ambitions earlier.

Because it’s circular like this, it lends toward bigger crashing and burning. If OpenAI fails, all these investors that are deeply integrated into their supply chains lose both their investment and customer.

[est31]

> But the problem is that Toys R Us is spending $15, 20, or maybe even $50 (who knows?) to sell a $10 toy.

It's like how Uber and Airbnb in the early days were burning loads of cash to build market share. People went to these services because they were cheaper. Then they would increase prices once they had a comfortable position.

OpenAI is also in a rapidly transforming field where there are a lot of cost reductions happening, efficiency gains etc. Compared to say Uber which didn't provide a lot of efficiency gains.

[Aditya_Garg]

This is a common misconception

OpenAI and others are already profitable on inference (inference is really really cheap)

They are just heavily investing into the latest frontier

The biggest risk is whether they can stay cutting edge, or if open source or others will catch up quickly.

[SV_BubbleTime]

OK, so absolutely good faith here what is the end game?

Obviously, there’s a scenario of super power AI and then it’s a matter of continuing course. Electricity and silicon.

What if you are right, and the scaling doesn’t work. It is too much power, time, hardware to improve… does openAI fold?

Do they just actual use the models they have?

Does everyone just decide that AI didn’t work and go back 5 years like it didn’t happen?

Does the price change so that they have to be profitable making AI services expensive and rare instead of today where they are everywhere pointlessly?

Or does this insane valuation only make sense with information you don’t have like insider scaling or efficiency news?

Does China’s strategy of undercutting US value of models pay off bigly?

[lysace]

Cisco did this in 1999. That's how my smallish apartment building in Sweden ended up with a kick-ass Cisco 10 Gbps switch in its basement a year later - when these cost real money.

I think the HOA still only pays like $10/month/apartment for an entry level that's now defined as 250/250 Mbit/s. Someone must have been unusually savvy with the contracts.

https://newsroom.cisco.com/c/r/newsroom/en/us/a/y1999/m11/ci...

Cisco survived but it took them until late last year to recover their 1999 stock value (that's 26 years).

[dfp33]

Nope wrong framing.

Nvidia is investing assets into OAI - it has to. Because OAI needs to become successful for Nvidia's story in the long-term to play out, to justify its current stock price.

[malfist]

You say calling it circular is wrong framing and the immediately proceeded to describe a circle.

[trvz]

Nvidia just needs the winner to be an Nvidia customer. OpenAI is replacable.