Why OpenAI may well be completely Zuck’d
We recorded 8 claims from this post. 3 were checked against evidence. 5 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (8)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I have long suspected that OpenAI was losing money, and lots of it, but never seen an analysis, until this morning.”
Our reading: Marcus has long suspected that OpenAI was losing a lot of money, though until The Information's analysis he had not seen an analysis showing it.
No horizon
Qualifier: long suspected
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“That’s not great news for OpenAI, and you can see why they haven’t been, um, Open, about their financials (reporting only revenue but not costs and profits), if The Information is even close to right.”
Our reading: If The Information's analysis is roughly right, OpenAI's losses explain why it reports only revenue and not costs or profits.
No horizon
Qualifier: if The Information's analysis is close to right
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Causal claim
“Customers can easily switch to other providers, almost anytime they want, and for month there had been more and more alternatives, including Anthropic and Google, at more and more attractive prices, forcing OpenAI itself to cut prices just a few days ago.”
Our reading: Customers can easily switch LLM providers, and growing cheaper alternatives from Anthropic and Google forced OpenAI to cut prices in July 2024.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Company launch claims are not independent price-performance measurements.
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Observation
“LLMs have just became exactly the commodity I predicted they would become, at the lowest possible price.”
Our reading: LLMs have become a commodity available for free.
No horizon Evidence as of
Limitation: Capability comparisons in the cited primary sources come from Meta.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“But investors really ought to ask some tough questions, such as these:”
Our reading: Investors should press OpenAI on its moat, unique technology, killer app, reliability, demo versus reality, and path to profitability.
No horizon
Assessment: UnresolvedSaid
Forecast
“Obviously, their only hope is to raise more cash, and they will certainly try.”
Our reading: OpenAI's only hope of survival is raising more cash, and it will try to.
No deadline stated Evidence as of
Limitation: This verdict retains both parts of the supplied claim; it does not silently reduce it to the fundraising prediction.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“All of these questions are hard, with no obvious answer; the last may be fatal. OpenAI may well be Zuck’d.”
Our reading: OpenAI may fail to find a path to profitability because Meta gives away similar technology for free, and this may be fatal to the company.
No horizon
Qualifier: Meta giving away similar tech for free
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Ditto for Anthropic, and a number of others.”
Our reading: Anthropic and several other LLM companies may be fatally undercut by Meta's free models.
No horizon
Qualifier: Meta giving away similar tech for free
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews reached different assessments. Our reading, not assessed: Like OpenAI, Anthropic has not been open about its financials, and it faces similar challenges.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: As far as Marcus can tell, OpenAI doesn't really have any moat (a way to hold off competition) beyond brand recognition.