[nickff]

I recall reading that Google had similar 'delay' issues when crawling the web in 2000 and early 2001, but they managed to survive. That said, OpenAI seems much less differentiated (now) than Google was back then, so this may be a much riskier situation.

[echelon]

Google didn't raise at a $500 billion valuation.

The 25x revenue multiple wouldn't be so bad if they weren't burning so much cash on R&D and if they actually had a moat.

Google caught up quick, the Chinese are spinning up open source models left and right, and the world really just isn't ready to adopt AI everywhere yet. We're in the premature/awkward phase.

They're just too early, and the AGI is just too far away.

Doesn't look like their "advertising" idea to increase revenue is working, either.

[shridharxp]

There is no moat in selling/renting AI models. They are a commoditized product now. I can't imagine with what thought process did investors poured in such money on OpenAI.

[fzzzy]

Tulip mania is a mania because it short circuits thought.

[redbluered]

The differentiation should be open source, nonprofit, and ethical.

As a shady for-profit, there is none. That's the problem with this particular fraud.

[echelon]

Why is profit bad? You can be open source, ethical, and for-profit.

[khafra]

If you start out as a non-profit, and pull a bunch of shady shenanigans in order to convert to a for-profit, claiming to be ethical after that is a bit of a hard sell.

[savrajsingh]

Yes, the story was something like Google hadn’t rebuilt their index for something like 8 months if I recall correctly