There is zero evidence of any causal link between him and this. The obvious one, instead, is SpaceX's volatility.
> Do me a favor and tell me how much of the 1,000,000,000,000 spent / committed to a datacenter buildout has been returned to shareholders / investors?
If Anthropic also delays its IPO, you'll have a point.
Ed’s leaks demonstrated that OAI doesn’t make money (even on inference).
Put these two together and I think the conclusion is pretty obvious.
They did not.
What? How? SpaceX loses oodles of money. It's trading above its IPO, and just filled an oversubscribed bond deal.
> Put these two together and I think the conclusion is pretty obvious
Zitron has a faithful following. He isn't a broadly-influential analyst.
What exactly do you think “volatility” means in this context?
> OpenAI’s advisers presented company executives with the option of waiting until 2027 to go public with a $1 trillion valuation, or lower the targeted valuation for a quicker I.P.O. Mr. Altman, said one person in contact with him on the topic, responded that any change to the trillion-dollar valuation was a nonstarter.
I really don't know how to read this and reach any conclusion other than, OpenAI leadership won't accept what financial analysts consider to be a rational valuation of its stock.
Let me amend: it's a more-obvious cause given it's pertinent new information in a way Zitron partially leaking financials many institutional investors have already seen is not.
> don't know how to read this and reach any conclusion other than, OpenAI leadership won't accept what financial analysts consider to be a rational valuation of its stock
Neither did SpaceX and, as you say, it's trading above its IPO price and placing tens of billions of dollars of debt.
I think Zitron's analysis was on the balance good, though it didn't say a lot of what folks on here seem to have taken away (e.g., about OpenAI's inference being marginally unprofitable). It seems he's got a bit of a cult of personality around him, which makes me inherently sceptical. But it's a pretty ridiculous reach to claim OpenAI had to delay its IPO because of him versus the much-more visible and talked about thing.
How would there be? He's a blogger and a youtuber, they are a private company with secretive financials, bankers involved in pre-IPO work don't talk openly. Nobody is going to say "we only decided not to do this because of a youtuber" because that would make them look like the ill-informed, over-eager idiots they've been to let this nonsense get this far.
Why would there be any concrete evidence it was down to him specifically, and not, say, dozens of finance people saying "what the *fuck* is that marketing budget about — that's so large it looks like something's been hidden in it" after reading about it from him and the FT and everyone else who was involved.
We're an obnoxiously chatty bunch.
