[asim]

Nothing is worth $852B in that space of time unless they are printing more than half of that in cash which to be clear they are not. They are burning it at that rate. Let's be clear. It's a valuable company, a valuable product, a valuable technology. It set the trend for the next phase of computer usage. But it's not worth $852B in that span of time and when it goes public that reality will bear down on them quickly.

It's a falling knife. Don't try catch it on the way down. That valuation might be justified in another 10 years.

[kikokikokiko]

Falling knife or not, if you own an index fund, or if your 401k owns one, you're buying a piece of it at IPO prices. The exit scam is almost complete.

[nofriend]

Index funds won't get in at ipo prices. They wait a year or so before including new stocks, so the price is guaranteed to have settled by then. OpenAI also isn't profitable yet so that's another point against them in terms of being included in index funds.

[strongpigeon]

NASDAQ just changed some rules recently concerning exactly this.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-rule-could-fast-track-spa...

[utopiah]

> justified in another 10 years.

Hard to imagine when they don't have any moat.

Sure they have ... I don't know how many users but it's not like a social network. Instagram was valued $10B with 10 very VERY fast not because of it's tech or employees but mostly IMHO because of the number of locked in users ... because of OTHER users.

Here if one wants to move from OpenAI to Anthropic, they can and they do. You might have difficulty exporting history, context, etc but you make it.

Even basic email has more lock-in than any of the model provider. They did have some moat few years ago, arguably, but now no differentiator that would justify such a valuation.

They are no Meta/Google/Microsoft/Oracle not because of their size or technology but only because their customers can swap providers.

[shalmanese]

> Even basic email has more lock-in than any of the model provider.

History has proven the average person has very little ability to discern which products have lock-in.

Everyone was confidently predicting Uber would dominate over all the regional ride sharing apps because ride sharing is a commodity and subsidies were enough to shift user behavior.

The thesis from AI providers about lockin have always been coherent: increased personalization and learning of workflows over time would increasingly make using a new AI much worse than an AI that already knows you. If you look at the human virtual assistant world, stickiness is incredibly high once are happy with your onboarded assistant because onboarding a new person unavoidably sucks.

Is this thesis correct? We don’t know, it took Uber billions of burnt cash to discover their thesis was incorrect.