For those asking, c.ai has very high cost and looks like a typical consumer company that burns money for use, so they were decent on revenue but not near profitability.
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-hires-charact...
Those investors almost certainly have a liquidation preference. How much did employee shareholders get? I'd guess zero.
"I am confident that the funds from the non-exclusive Google licensing agreement, together with the incredible Character.AI team, positions Character.AI for continued success in the future,” Shazeer said in a statement given to TechCrunch."
That's a pretty hilarious statement from a Founder/CEO, given the circumstances.
“Over the past two years, however, the landscape has shifted; many more pre-trained models are now available. Given these changes, we see an advantage in making greater use of third-party LLMs alongside our own. This allows us to devote even more resources to post-training and creating new product experiences for our growing user base.”
My interpretation is that Character.AI realized they don't actually need to train their own foundation models from scratch to support their product - they can build cheaper, faster and probably better if they use LLMs trained by other companies (could be GPT-4o/Claude/Gemini via APIs, could be Llama 3.1 self-hosted).
If they're not training foundation models any more, the talents of people like Noam Shazeer aren't so important to them. They need to focus on product development instead.
Does Meta get in the way of this?
It's hard to compete with a company that is dead set on spending billions and seemingly wants to drive your SOTA AI product revenue to 0.
If you are OpenAI or Anthropic right now, it seems like trying to run a great restaurant at a reasonable price right next to a good (great?) restaurant that is serving everyone for free.
LLMs are become akin to tools, like programming languages. They’re blank slates, but require implementation to become special.
Why is the CEO important to model development regardless of talents? They've raised $150m+, have $15m+ ARR and ~200 employees, etc. Shouldn't the CEO be CEOing?
Edit: reading the comments below, it seems like maybe he thought the expected value of attempting to clear the hurdle of their valuation/liquidation preferences at a $250k/year salary as CEO was lower than a $5m+/year salary/RSUs from Google?
Character.ai could've been at $100mm+ ARR if they did a bit more of a monetization push based on my very rough estimates. If it was an acquisition I would've been imagining $3b+ price range.
Huge get by Google! (Side note, Gemini 1.5's new alpha release from this week is now at the top of the lmsys leaderboard and sentiment on twitter for it is that it's strong, maybe as strong as sonnet 3.5, so it'll continue to be an interesting race between meta, openai, anthropic, gdm.)
Edit: Okay perhaps it's - Noam keeps his C.ai stock, gets a big pay package from Google ($5mm-$15mm/year kinda range? not sure). Most of the value in C.ai remains, and he keeps his stock.
Actually a nice and polite guy, too.
where did you get $500mm number?..
So basically leaving a shell of a company and the GC to try and run it / wind it down.
It doesn't necessairly imply Character.ai's business isn't doing well, but a CEO leaving is still indeed weird.
this is basically Inflection 2.0.
1. Find an unhappy senior AI exec from who's published a few papers who's published a few papers. 2. Start a new org around them and hire a few key people with crazy salaries (which you can offer cause the time horizon for the company isn't that long). 3. Train a few models, release some good looking benchmarks (bonus points if big tech lend you their GPUs as part of some 'accelerator deal'). 4. Maybe find PMF and become incredibly rich. 4. If that fails, sign a massive but undisclosed licensing deal for your tech with big tech and give them your staff.
Seems like a good way to take big bets in AI, while hedging most of the risk.
Only difference in this cycle is that you can't do real LLM research in academia these days so all of the top researchers are already at FANG.
It's like those rich guy/poor guy jokes.
Poor guy leaves his job, tries bootstrap its own company and fails, comes back to its old job. "What a loser".
Rich guy leaves his job, gets 150M to start a company in a blue ocean with a significant competitive advantage over 99.99% of humans alive. Still manages to fail and comes back to its old job. "What a bold move!"
Oh there is a place where rich guys can "get" $150M, but poor guys couldn't.
What do you mean by this? Fundamental research? It makes sense, most of the innovations now will be in things like clever caching mechanisms and reducing compute.
If there was any real intent to give c.ai a chance as a real business they would have hired a new ceo before the announcement.
The more money you raise the more the pressure - and for deep researchers, this is usually noise that takes you away from your passion.
Shazz may be the kind of person that just wants to concentrate on research and doesn't really care about the rest...