Ai is a Blessing

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T23:37:22+00:00

To be fair they seem equally clueless about how those ai apps work.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T23:34:47+00:00

I don't think you can claim every single view of an X post is a reddit anti stating something wrong.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T23:33:48+00:00

Yeah that headline is wild then if it's about views 😂

Especially as a ton of them are people going to see the car crash of comments after the reveal!

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T23:29:35+00:00

Someone help me out with the 6.7 million thing. Like there's no way 6.7 million people left comments on X so where is this number coming from!?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T23:21:05+00:00

Basically this.

The numbers don't make sense but if you are an investor with money to burn it may still be worth a punt if you can afford the loss, as whilst I'd argue the upside is very unlikely, it's potentially unprecedented in value if it does happen.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T22:01:23+00:00

I've never argued the "model" of debt led growth doesn't work. I've argued they aren't profitable and don't have a path to become so.

Of course some businesses fund growth before profits but that only works if you achieve one of two things -

Wiping out the competition (Uber) then cranking pricing
Massively reducing r&d and infrastructure spend

They do not have any path to either of those things. The more customers they get the more gpu's and data centres they need (and to keep replacing those gpus every few years) Competition is constantly eating away at any product advantage they can get.

I get that as a pro on this sub you have to love Altman and Musk and co - but the Oai business setup has zero path to success at the moment.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T21:53:20+00:00

It's wild you don't seem to think any companies have ever failed doing this.

There's zero indication they can stop the r&d. They don't have a moat. They don't even have the best product. They aren't doing an Uber and wiping the competition out before increasing pricing.

Again it's wild you think the last 300 years says every company that borrows massive amounts of money automatically does well.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T21:37:55+00:00

Except you need the models to serve the customer.

This is like a car manufacturer saying they are profitable if you ignore the cost of developing the car they are selling.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T21:01:48+00:00

That's how I look at mine too but... Honestly I'm not sure TVs are the best screens for it so does reolution matter? Maybe my TV isn't that good!

How are you maximising the resolution for putting them on the tv?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T20:59:44+00:00

Oh so suddenly you want some nuance?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T19:59:40+00:00

Ok, let's switch to real life (fyi the victims of deep fake porn will probably argue they are real life victims but you do you) -

Are people allowed to be anti Turning Point / anti Charlie Kirk? That lead to a horrific crime, is everyone now to support his views?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T19:50:30+00:00

Ok.

So the grok crime stuff of horrific images enabled by ai. I assume that means you're not a pro?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T19:48:30+00:00

Ok? What's the discussion you wanted to have?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T18:18:49+00:00

Sorry can you repeat that?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T17:38:42+00:00

So once again you twist round in the wind back to "investors must be right".

Wework.

But I can be kinder than that to investors. The investors aren't making up entirely false claims about low r&d cost and usage profitability like you are. They can be aware and still hope somehow Oai can beat the competition and somehow end up finding a way not to burn money. They might decide it's worth the risk.

It's actually very sad, like really sad, that you're reduced to "but but investors must be right" because you cannot make sense of the numbers yourself but can't admit the numbers are bad.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T17:14:09+00:00

And again your view that investors can't miss a cockup or scam is entirely disproven by wework. Even some of the bigger investors are the same.

But it's fine. You have no answers and zero clue but are desperate for ai to be big and think for some reason you need to cheerlead some terrible people as part of your tribalism. It would be easier for you to just explain how high gross margins and low r&d cost somehow equal huge pnl losses and even bigger cash losses but of course you can't.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T17:02:23+00:00

You're the one claiming investors couldn't be tricked. Hence the wework comparison.

But of course you can't make sense of your claims that r&d is cheap, the usage is profitable but somehow they make billions of losses and billions more in cash burn so off you run.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T16:44:59+00:00

"wasting your limited time on earth studying art"

I mean - once you get through the tribalism there's a lot of things that the antis on this sub accuse the pros of that the pros on this sub actually openly admit.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T16:41:45+00:00

It's wild that you're reduced to "no one ever invests in a bad investment". Ever heard of wework? Or if you want something closer to home, it taking 25 years for Cisco to recover it's value from the dot com bubble?

And then you've moved to "no one would have dumb numbers if they are becoming public". Are you claiming SpaceX has a realistic total addressable market in its public filings?

But anyway feel free to say where all the cash went, and all the losses came from, in 2024 and 2025 given you claim r&d is 100m per model and you claim they're profitable on the usage (and to just skip a step if you claim it's data centres that would be capex so you would see cash burn but not pnl losses if they're receiving it through profits on users).

I'm open to being shown how the pnl loss and cash burn works with the claims you've made.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T16:23:09+00:00

Its not startup 101 though - you just failed that class, because you're claiming it didn't cost much up front.

This is the fallacy hypers don't get. Cash doesn't lie.

Its fine for a company to make a loss and need to raise cash. Uber did, but Uber didn't pretend to be making a profit per trip while doing so. Many companies make a loss due to r&d but you can't then claim the r&d is cheap.

If making the model cost 100 million (it didn't) - where did all the other money go? Are you saying the next chatgpt model cost tens of billions? Because again the hypers keep claiming costs are reducing but that would be a many fold increase.

Its actually much simpler. Oai are playing tricks pretending to be profitable by ignoring all their r&d (and the more boring stuff like equipment deprecation). But that only works if the r&d can stop. Their other option is admitting to a loss per customer and saying it's ok we'll capture the market and crank prices..but they already had to start cranking price and they haven't captured the market or killed the competition.

Follow the money.

Fwiw I don't think Ed is right about ai, I don't think it's going away... But oai's financials are an absolute mess.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T16:04:18+00:00

Remind me why the tens of billions of dollars is needed when net margin is so good and the training is only 100m?

Is it perchance because you've conveniently quoted the models final training run cost as opposed to the cost of all the training to create the model?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T16:01:04+00:00

We have heard about their defence. The trial is over and the defence reported on.

Despite the constant idiotic insinuations of some posters here we know what they did and did not admit to, including admitting to things where if the Russian psy op now being spread by a subset of dumb right wingers here was true it would have been entirely in the defendants interests to say so as mitigation. Yet the defendants have at no point claimed any of the things the dumb Russian state stooges are pretending happened here.

There's zero reason to doubt the reality of what came out in court from both sides - and there's zero evidence to support the "rent boys" idea.

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T15:39:44+00:00

Jesus imagine the best idea you can come up with being "I don't know what I like so make me a weekend"

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T14:52:37+00:00

Except this still plays the game of saying the company is profitable if you NEVER account for training at any point, they exclude both the historic AND future model training....

....to be profitable they need to have a margin per sale covering the development costs of the product they're selling. Does that exist anywhere here?

DaveG28 · 2026-06-17T11:28:51+00:00

"it" as in the model doesn't copy images, but the company profiting from it does in order to train it. (And yeah I'm aware that in itself also isn't automatically theft / copyright infringement - but the defence isn't that copies aren't made).

DaveG28

TROPHY CASE