• Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I’m guessing the lost funds are bleeding out to energy concerns. Correct? Asides from brief construction contracts for data centers, I’m unsure how one makes such large sums of money disappear.

    • BenevolentOne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 hours ago

      There is a lot to unpack here, finance is interesting.

      Investors spend money to build companies on the expectation that those companies will be worth more money than they spent in the future.

      One way they spend that money is on the acquisition of bonds, which are firm guarantees against future debts. Bonds are often part of other financial structures (you’ll see them a lot in a hedge, which is a way to limit liability on an investment in exchange for some upside).

      If I’m reading the article correctly, those bonds had a condition where they could be converted to shares at a certain price, so the investment and the hedge were part of the same instrument.

      It’s not accurate to say that the money could have been deployed otherwise, one way to think about this is that large banks have very large, often self-issued, credit limits. Companies also have self-issued credit limits, related to the banks.

      In this case specifically, some amount of this money is going to come out of the IPO, the 80 billion doesn’t exist in any other way.

      tl;dr The 80 billion that ‘vanished’ here wasn’t actually spent on anything, it’s valuation against those bonds. It’s also an exciting headline.

      Anyways, I hope this was helpful, these companies are definitely getting a lot of investment (running up their credit cards) in the hopes of a big payout, but this doesn’t have anything to do with private equities current running speculation on data center construction or power consumption, or any of those big problems.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 hours ago

      From what I understood it’s not really money “lost”, it’s that the company was valued a certain amount and, with a bit of that hype dying down, it’s now valued 80 Billion less.

      I’m not an expert on… pretty much any argument in this thread though, so if someone more knowledgeable can chime in I’d appreciate too.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Goddamm… This could easily have housed every man, woman, and child in this country. But no, no free housing while we squander wealth with our stupid ideas.

    • cardfire@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Spacex really changed the game, forcing the markets to load up that ish in our 401(k)'s.

      Next, when Musk threatens to “gift” every child spacex stock in their Trump accounts, it’s another form of using the general public as an exit , well artificially propping up the moonshot companies stock values.

      It is a Master Class in forcing volatility into the financial lives of not just retail investors but Main Street people.

    • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      In old days, but there are so many random retail investors in the market now keeping garbage stocks afloat. Same reason why Tesla is so over valued and why GameStop won’t die.

      Nowadays, stocks are made of fairy dust and wishes. It’s all nonsense when fanboys get involved.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m doing my part by constantly asking chatgpt questions without ever logging in or paying them money. Eventually they’ll all go belly up and maybe we can ditch this shit.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I firmly believe OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., will all eventually collapse under their own weight, meanwhile open weight distillations of their models will become the de facto standard for AI usage. There’s just no way they can ever make up all the money they’ve burned in R&D, especially when distillations are right behind them.

        • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 hours ago

          What happens to Nvidia when the AI bubble pops though? They will lose so much revenue. Now they should be perfectly sustainable still given that they can sell GPUs to the same customers they used to. But will shareholders like that?

      • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        90% of Anthropic money is enterprise API use which is far less subsidised than their subscriptions being 10% of their income. OpenAI on the otherhand relies on the subs.

        There is still going to be a big bubble bursting. It’ll be interesting to see how each company handles it.

        • cardfire@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Check out what portion of Anthropic revenues turned out to be processing distillation for others, namely Chinese market players.

          A huge portion of their revenue basically came from their competitors using their horsepower against them to build the next, better mouse trap

  • joeschmoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Idk man, to me, it feels like we are further from AGI than fusion reactors actually being hooked up to the grid, considering LLMs are still just glorified autocorrects, needing a ton of prompt injections from their providers. And yet, the AI companies make it seem like it’s right around the corner (obviously, because $$$), whereas to me it feels like we are still at least 50 years away. Maybe AGI will be the next fusion generator chase.

    • joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      They did manage to do something different, though. I thought at one point that proof assistants should offer to automatically upload your proofs to a central repository so everyone can benefit from them. But such a system would require many to opt in for it to be useful.

      What AI does best is giving you existing solutions. It even adapts them if they don’t quite fit. Because many people now discuss their ideas with AI, ideas may spread the same way as well when the conversations are used as training data.

      So no, definitely not AGI but valuable. Though as typical of explosively growing startups the value does not come from the technology but from activity bordering on criminal that lawmakers can’t keep up with.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because many people now discuss their ideas with AI, ideas may spread the same way as well when the conversations are used as training data.

        As a training data it’s possible less then useful, unsupervised data like that is actively harmful. As a central repository of everyone’s private conversations it can be in a way useful, but I can’t understand how anyone could be OK with a private company reselling your most private data.

    • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      AGI has been achieved more or less because it just means self sufficient at completing tasks. An LLM is just a component these days because they are Vision-Audio-Language-Models with multi frequency ‘thought’ loops. The next letter is A for action where they just have high frequency outputs for direct computer and robot use.

      Just because it is bad AGI doesn’t mean it is not AGI right

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        See the problem is that people expect AGI to learn on its own. LLMs sorta do with big enough context and writing memories, but… They also don’t. They don’t get better at reasoning or anything, they only get better at solving the tasks they’ve written notes on. Which are themselves often pretty bad notes.

        • CovfefeKills@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 hours ago

          They do learn they use search tools and create long term memories. Mechanically that is just tool use it isn’t magic. Do you need these things as emergent properties for them to be real? That would be cool but I don’t think it takes away what is possible now.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Ironically there was notable news in the fusion reactor space this week as Gemini 4, building on the work of Matt Landreman and GPT-6 Astra a little while ago, expanded counterexamples to Grad’s conjecture which had claimed exact solutions for controlling a key aspect of fusion were impossible.

      So fusion may actually be more around the corner thanks to the advances of capabilities of AI which helped prove that the fusion problems aren’t as hard as they were thought to be for decades.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        And if you actually believe that, I have an amazing business proposition to you. So, there is a bridge in NY, and I can sell it to you for very little money…

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Building on other people’s work to provide examples for something is actually one of the things an LLM can be good for.