all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 57 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Reminds me so much of WeWork.

The profit's coming guys! Just another trillion, that's all we need!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    At least wework had some bangin offices to work out of. Now they are overpriced, getting ratty and basically there's been no investment. Last time I worked out of one I think they charged like $60 CAD, that's a lot for a day in a shared desk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    A coworker of mine worked in one for a time and loved it. WeWork's problem was that they inexplicably overpaid for all of the real estate they bought, so other office rental companies (who were managing their finances professionally) were eating their lunch.

    And, you know, letting Adam Neumann plunder the company for his own personal gain, which I'm absolutely certain Altman is doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 79 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    It recently occurred to me that OpenAI is using the MoviePass model.

    • Operating at a huge loss.
    • Get a bunch of investment
    • Try to strong arm other companies into giving you a piece of the profits
    • Fraud

    Didn't work out so well for MoviePass.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Only because MoviePass failed (to become a monopoly).

    Something like OpenAI forces investors to operate on a Sunk Cost Fallacy, where they'd rather keep bailing out the company than lose what they'd already invested. Nearly every commercially successfully corporation has followed this exact model.

    Once you reach Walmart/Amazon status (ie. household name) you're "too big to fail". Not until something else comes along to replace you. Actual business success is negligible once you're a monopoly.

    McDonald's is the shittiest fastfood chain on the planet and continuously going downhill, but not once has the company ever been in danger of shutting down. They've only continuously expanded until they convinced all consumers there was no better alternative.

    And last I checked, people have begun to embrace ChatGPT in the same teeth-gritting fashion as McDick.

    It might just cave like Vine, or it might outright replace Google. At this point, could go either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What really tells it for the scam that it is would be to overlay that with this dipshit's personal wealth over the same period.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    an interesting fun fact about altman, he met his husband at one of THIELs POOL parties, its not by accident around 2015.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Shouldn't there be an actual number that The Altman has essentially burned, in front of all those zeros, and behind the negative symbol? Otherwise it seems to be saying that they are still almost liquid.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    That 2015 pic makes me understand why Peter Thiel was such a fan. He was kind of a cute twink actually.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    altman met his husband during one of THIELS parties at the time, strange coincidence he started openai after it. thiel has ties to epstein too. I wonder how far gawker couldve gone if they wernt sued to the ground due to a vendetta by Thiel, they were definitely reporting on some of suspicious business pratices.

    Thiel side piece was young male model who was defenestrated last year in florida, and largely buried by MSM and even on reddit it dint last a day, he definitely has a type.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    How come regulations haven't made them stop using that misleading name already ?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago

    fools...it will be $0,000,000,000,000 in 5 years.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    The face of someone who wants to raise children with chat gpt.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Those zeroes are off, right? Aren't we WELL into the billions in sunk costs?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Shouldn't the profit be more like -$20B or something? Since they're actively losing money

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Let's ask AI!

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (13 children)

    The business model isn't to make money from a chat bot. The aim is to get to AGI and make money that way. Replacing workers with AI would be a gigantic money maker. Nearly all the big players bank on that.

    If that is even possible is still unclear. A big bet with billions of dollars.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    So if AGI is the key to replacing (most) workers, then AGI cannot exist without democratic socialism else we'll all starve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    LLM's are cool and all, but you can't use them for anything requiring real precision without allocating human work time to validate the output, unless you want to end up on the national news for producing something fraudulent.

    And making it so their image generator can generate porn isn't going to change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, currently AI isn't reliable enough to use instead of a human. All the big AI businesses bet that this will change - either by training with more data or some technological breakthrough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Could be they're right.

    They tried that with Theranos because Elizabeth Holmes' machine could correctly identify four viruses.

    Presumably LLM's have already trained on the entirety of human knowledge and communication and still produce buggy information, so I'm skeptical that it'll work out the way the VC's expect, but we'll see.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Well, we know absolutely for certain that consciousness is just complex computation... right?

    Because it would be very very silly to have bet all these billions of dollars on a convenient assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Yes. In the long run you are absolutely right.

    But these are people who pray at the altar of short term growth and for that it's the Holy Grail.

    Wages are one of the biggest expenses for a lot of companies. That's why the first reflex of managers, if the numbers are bad, is "fire people". Ignoring that the loss of knowledge and experience, as well as the additional stress for the remaining people, might very well hasten their demise.

    Now what are these people going to do if you can reduce the biggest expense to a fraction of the original cost while possibly crashing the economy?

    Hint: these are not the same people who will be blamed if the economy tanked and are rich enough to relocate to whatever country still does well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I like to imagine that the "-" indicates its negative (i know a negative 0 makes no sense but it sounds fitting)

  • source