Technology

While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can't agree with leadership being smart.

This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they're actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they're fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.

Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.

Despite the popular fantasy, the rich and powerful are not stupid.

Uh... famously untrue. Mental illness has plagued monarchs, pharaohs, and caesers for millennia. That's long before you get to all the quirked up white boys and trad rad girl bosses currently running things.

You don’t know more about a company or market from passively consuming headlines than the leadership of that company.

Okay, but you can review their balance sheets and their primary lines of credit. Case in point, Sam Altman is heavily reliant on three big financial partners - Softbank, Oracle, and NVIDIA. Two of these are - themselves - hemorrhaging money thanks to large capital outlays that have failed to produce substantive returns.

There are finance journalists who get out ahead of this and report their own analysis. And you can find that in a thousand different private journals, substacks, and podcasts. But you can also go do the grunt work yourself if you're ambitious.

OpenAI's financials have been disclosed already (although the official SEC filing is still upcoming). So... just read them if you doubt what you're reading in the news. But it's not some kind of secret that the business is operating at a loss, with a fixation on debt-fueled growth. The argument is over future projected revenue, which isn't something business leadership can be any more certain of than a passive media consumer.

I definitely get the knee-jerk impulse to announce "business professionals know more about business than internet idiots". Because, sure. True. But the idea that business professionals don't routinely make bad decisions has some pretty historic well-established counterpoints.

Counterpoint:

They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that "smart people with spreadsheets won't let them lose money" is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.

They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.

Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you're right. You're just right for the wrong reason.

Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.

The more people actively using these tools, even if they're just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the "active users" metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies "make thier money".

I think companies these days are more about valuation (how much people think they are worth) vs profit (what they actually earn). AI companies are loss leaders, yet vcs still fund them anyways. Paying them more money will just add to hype and valuation (eg "our XX service grew YY% which projects to ZZ potential profit")