Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 248 days ago
> I'm assuming you're trying to get me to say "you don't, they look the same"

No, I'm genuinely asking for a test. Pursuing ancilliary revenue would, to me, indicate they're behaving more like a business and less like a moonshot.

> giving the view from an investors point of view -- you don't expect these to eventually run like a normal business where their revenue exceeds their cost

I've invested in AI companies. Every pitch material I've seen projects forward to profitability.
1 comments
jedberg 248 days ago
Pursuing ancillary revenue can still be a moonshot. Look at SpaceX. Musk has specially said his goal is Mars. But they still build ships and sell commercial services to fund continued development.

I've invested in AI companies too, but I'm not taking about that. I'm talking about foundation model companies (namely OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Google, etc.).

I'm sure the pitches for Anthropic and OpenAI show paths to profit, because you'd have to, and I'm sure the internal docs at Google and Amazon show the same thing, but that doesn't mean it's not a moonshot.

You'd have to show that if you want to get funded at all.

link
JumpCrisscross 248 days ago
> Pursuing ancillary revenue can still be a moonshot. Look at SpaceX. Musk has specially said his goal is Mars

SpaceX is profitable. Mars isn't "the only way" SpaceX's investors "get a return on their capital."

> I'm talking about foundation model companies (namely OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Google, etc.)

I am, too. (The private ones, at least.)

> You'd have to show that if you want to get funded at all

Doesn't this undermine the argument that "the people investing in AI companies" expect "the only way they get a return on their capital" is if their horse invents AGI?

link