OAI is on track to sit in the same category as Palantir as a brand and pretty much going to either work with Palantir or compete with them for the precious funding from the govt.
I know most of you here dont quite have the imagination to see it. But feel free to screenshot my post and lets talk in a year ;)
totally agree, id even say openai already secured it.
openai is best fit for usa's interests. sam is smart enough to be politically flexible and keep his mouth shut on closing doors of opportunities.
musk's views are best fit for world's interests but he's really spread thin and xai still sub par compared to openai, anthropic, google. he's also play safe lately trying to be politically neutral after his stint with the republicans.
im rooting for anthropic given their product excellence but it pains me that the other side of it is the effective altruism, the politics of dems, so on.
>The AI effect refers to a phenomenon where either the definition of AI or the concept of intelligence is adjusted to exclude capabilities that AI systems have mastered
Hence once AI reaches the point of human intelligence, by the AI effect, humans will stop being intelligent.
What's there to discuss? OAI is seeking a hand-out from the govt to save their asses. They (Sam + top-management) see the writing on the wall and need help.
This. The OpenAI grift is to make itself too big to fail. They are playing a game of chicken ahead of the election circus. Trump must keep the market alive until November. Nvidia, Micron, Oracle, Microsoft are cooked when and if they pop.
Is there a term for such a recurring cycle in which speculative bubbles form, institutions and governments collaborate/collude to sustain them, and when the system finally reaches a breaking point the bubble collapses... leaving the public to absorb the losses while those responsible largely walk away with their pay and bonuses intact?
This one is unusual in that the government started bailing out the AI companies last year. Usually, it waits until the bubble pops, and then starts the bail outs.
That's standard operating procedure for Trump though.
He did the same thing in 2016-19 with the zero interest rate policy + tax cuts even though the economy was strong. Any macroeconomics book (or NPR station during those years) will tell you that doing that creates short-term economic growth, but sets the next administration up for [hyper-]inflation.
Of course, that happened, and those same books go on to say "and, usually, because inflation takes a bit to kick in, the next president will be blamed. This is why we have an independent Fed".
So, this time around, he's trying to pull the same crap by dismantling the Fed, and, until then, lean hard into deficit spending to keep unemployment low. Last year, money went to data centers, and domestic paramilitary actions and prison build-outs. This year, we have those things and a new pointless forever war.
However, it's not working the same way as it did last time. He's done so much other collateral damage that we're in a "boomcession" where the economic indicators become untethered from reality. So, they show growth, but people's quality of life, spending power, job security, and so on all decrease.
For example, a piece of the GDP is "how much does your bank screw you per year on your checking account?". This is treated like discretionary spending, and it's gone up from a few hundred a year to over $2000 in 2025. That increase counts as economic growth, instead of institutionalized theft.
Medical spending increases drove all the US's GDP growth last quarter. The quarter before that, it was spending on AI datacenters that's backed by junk loans and federal dollars.
Anyway, I don't have an answer for your question better than "bubble", but the current economic cycle is not what you described. It is a "boomcession". As far as I can tell, it's a new class of economic disaster, at least in the US.
We need to create a special place where people who ‘get it’ congregate.
Sadly this place is full of noise and people who don’t get the big picture - leading to the down voting of posts and continual drowning out of stuff closer to the truth by noise and hysteria.
IMHO everyone needs to cancel there subscriptions with all of the ai products until stuff blows over. I don't trust anyone in this industry.There is probably one person or one group behind all of these AI companies that just needs to keep the engine going until they figure out how to replace everyone with bots that can do the dirty work.
I agree and for me personally this is very easy to see and understand.
Why do you think the vast majority of people fail to see it like this? Guys like Musk obvious hype it up as he now has tied the valuation of the firms he owns and operates to this story.
I don't disagree with the general utility of humanoid (or other multipurpose) robots, just not in a factory setting.
I think automating stuff in the factory makes zero sense - its a controlled environment with purpose designed tooling where anything that makes sense to automate has been automated. All the extra work will only result in marginal gains.
It's automating the stuff that goes on outside of the factories - for example construction imo is about almost as labor intensive as it was a century ago, the marginal gains were offset by more complex building techniques and higher expectations.
Housing is also just about the most valuable thing that exists in every country.
Because so much infrastructure is in humanoid form. If you can make something that can manipulate two hands on arms that are positioned and moved like human arms, you could just put that torso into a lot of situations to replace a human without a lot of retooling. That's the dream I think.
Installing humanoid robots in a factory is like using regexes to parse data.
It makes sense if it's a one-off but there are better solutions.
Maybe it does make sense for small scale businesses that need just a little automation? Like a humanoid robot could restock shelves and do inventory in a grocery store at night, and you wouldn't need to retrofit anything to be able to do that.
Large scale factories seems like the wrong use case for humanoid robots.
I dunno. They were valued last week at $700+ billion weren't they? When you have that kind of capital available I'm not entirely sure how possible it even is to go bankrupt.
Regardless, my point is that one dude canceling his $20/month subscription probably isn't going to affect anything, but it's basically all I can do.
Trying to create shortages etc is just typical Scam Altman behaviour and really speaks to how vulnerable he feels against Google's might.
There was a point where Google's existence was questioned, but they've been working away quietly and they'll win the long game. Altman viewed OAI as a way to reduce Google's AI dominance - I think when we look back in history it'll turn out he made it worse. Google wasn't all that interested in releasing LLMs out into the wild.
I tend to think you're right about Google. Just for the simple reason that webmasters everywhere try their best to keep OpenAI's crawlers out, while simultaneously trying their best to attract Google's.
"They were valued last week at $700+ billion weren't they?" So?
The money they have available is what is on the balance sheet, which they are burning right-through whilst facing immense competition and never-ending reinvestment, given that Google will carry on doing so. Cash flows from operations is a big fat negative.
I see Google first killing OAI, then eventually doing the same to Anthropic, once they figure out a suite of products that truly revolutionises the work of a sofware engineer beyond just talking to a chat interface, and bundle it into their existing offerings for enterprise.
I guess I just feel like when you're worth that much, you can be unprofitable for a very long time before it catches up with you. That's my perspective anyway, I could be wrong.
I agree that if anyone is going to kill OpenAI it's likely Google. They have even more funding and already have giant training indexes for search that they could likely leverage to improve their models in a way that OpenAI can't.
Thing is, that valuation is kind of based on vibes. If people get less enthusiastic about them (or just the sector in general), that valuation will go down. Their ability to raise money off it is limited.
Yeah it takes awhile for investors to start actually valuing things, they usually 'price' them which is mainly driven by mood and momentum.
Given that pricing is the name of the game, all should be wary of what interests founders and their employees who are paid via stock based compensation...
I very much believe something profound has happened in the era of ultra-convenience and social media etc. Its damaged the psyche of humans and the way they think. Invention and innovation will become less prevalant due to this.
