Interesting take - upvoted you. I'm not convinced it's been the optimal management strategy, but you're succinctly explaining what they have done, not what they should have done, and in that sense you have a good point.
Still leaves huge questions about ROI ($26tln of TAM, anyone???) and doesn't quell the concerns brought forward by AI detractors though.
Out of $13Bln of 2025 revenue, OpenAI received $867 million from one customer (less charitably, one bankroller), SoftBank. And $300 million from Microsoft[0]. That's more than a drop in the bucket, especially given that they're not the only players complicit in being both an investor and a customer.
Also are we sure it's all at arm's length? Barring a full audit, it's not possible to guarantee that there's no round-tripping or overstating of revenue. With Microsoft also being a provider for OpenAI, they could be creatively using set-off, or using SG&A, in order to overstate their revenue/gross margin/inference profit margin. I of course have no proof, extraordinary claims etc. etc. It's unlikely but we should at least debate the possibility. They have such a huge collective incentive to do it.
Until all of your interactions are trained into future model releases, and another competitor steps in and takes all your "R&D" straight out of the model.
Interesting anecdote - is the 2/3rd of costs related to service charges, or the all-in lifetime costs of all the advertising that the cleaner has to pay for?
There are definitely good, cheap/free ways for businesses to get their name out there, e.g. Facebook pages for your local city, so I'm pretty firmly opposed to how much money is sloshing around in online advertising. It's so extractive.
Running with this analogy, the two sides of the AI argument are the people who think they can fire their plumber and electrician now that they have a drill driver, and the people who know it doesn't work that way...
Heisting multiple billions worth of crypto would have the same issues, just to a smaller degree. If that much illicit money is on the line, `mJurisdiction` which normally looks the other way might be tempted to investigate and confiscate it for their own benefit.
They also can't easily sell that amount quickly without repercussions (and without another institution like an exchange).
I was curious about this point when discussion came up on HN just recently. I don't see how you could "assign" each non-QR address a new quantum resistant address unless they "claim" it themselves somehow. What can possibly happen to an uneducated mom-and-pop bitcoin holder who never takes up their claim? Someone else who cracks their private key would be in an identical position to them w.r.t authenticating themselves and doing such a claim first - thus it becomes a race
> Shareholder returns go to the top 10% of Americans (who own 90% of US equities), so any argument about prosperity impairment from impaired immigration is going to fall on deaf ears in this context.
"We fail to tax our corporations adequately, so the proceeds of rampant deregulation and profiteering don't benefit the general populace".
I don't necessarily disagree with your stance but this seems like a weak justification (it's pragmatic, to be fair)
Do understand, though, that market return will struggle to achieve 9% for the coming decades. A 9% annualised return would put the US stock market at 50% of world GDP in 10 years (edit: 20) and something like 90% of world GDP in 30 years (edit: 50 years). Cost of goods, and your customer's money, both have to come out of global GDP too.
(The current value of around 25% of global GDP doesn't even include the 1.75 trillion SpaceX which alone would be another almost 1%...)
ETF expense ratios are small but still mean retail will underperform anyway. It's an unfortunate situation all around.
Facial recognition would be able to detect all the strangers around you, whereas audio would surely only pick up people nearer the device, and presumably wouldn't be able to tell people apart/identify them. You're right about network data; if they're using Wifi/BT probes then they can already find and identify everyone in the vicinity.
I'm curious why you're using past tense by the way?
I specifically wasn't referring to that instance (if anything I'm thinking more of the recent increase in measles outbreaks), I myself don't hold a strong view on COVID vaccinations. The trade-offs, and herd immunity thresholds, are different for different diseases.
Do we know that 0.1% prevalence of "unvaccinated" AI agents won't already be terrible?
This argument has the same obvious flaws as the anti-mask/anti-vax movement (which unfortunately means there will always be a fringe that don't care). These things are allowed to interact with the outside world, it's not as simple as "users can blow their own system up, it's their responsibility".
I don't need to think hard to speculate on what might go wrong here - will it answer spam emails sincerely? Start cancelling flights for you by accident? Send nuisance emails to notable software developers for their contribution to society[1]? Start opening unsolicited PRs on matplotlib?
Really sorry in advance, but I thought this whole HN thread could use a bit of positivity. I turned your satire into a mad-lib and asked AI to fill it in in a happy way.
But not me, I’m a dreamer. I have gifts, like the courage to kindle hope, or the patience to lose
track of time if I am laughing with friends. Thank god there are no
frowns here in this sun-drenched park where people are gathering to get
together for picnics or music or stargazing.
I tend to think you're right about what happened in this instance.
It contrasts with your first paragraph though; for the record do you think AI agents are a house-burn-down-toaster AND it was used neglectfully by the human, or just the human-at-fault thing?
Still leaves huge questions about ROI ($26tln of TAM, anyone???) and doesn't quell the concerns brought forward by AI detractors though.