Hacker News

points by prakhar897 1 day ago | 0 comments

Damodaran placed a fair value of $1.47T minus discount for really bad corporate structure. So $1.3T looks exactly right.

And its kind of circular way of reasoning. As the investors would've actually watched the video and included it in their calculations.

[–] segfaultex 1 day ago

$1.3T is still looney tunes for a company that literally has zero plan to turn a profit.

[–] dyauspitr 1 day ago

I don’t agree with you. Their product is a fully scalable almost human tier intelligence. I think it’s worth way more than $1 trillion but they have to get their capex in order first so they can provide dirt cheap tokens.

[–] timacles 1 day ago

If the company cant convert the product into earnings it really doesnt matter what the product is. It can be a magic machine that turns water into wine. They still have to find people willing to pay for it.

If the world is not ready for fully scalable almost human tier intelligence then, being right at the wrong time is the same as being wrong.

[–] stephbook 1 day ago

Uptake is amazing, isn't ChatGPT the most downloaded and beat TikTok easily?

Also you don't have to make people pay. Facebook doesn't charge end users for its products and neither does Google for either search or Android.

[–] 0conclusive-dem 1 day ago

its the most downloaded but they churn users quite a bit

[–] BLKNSLVR 1 day ago

So it's going to be full of advertising and will sell user days as the primary two ways it will be profitable?

I mean, that does sound very much like the future of our current timeline, unfortunately.

[–] wiseowise 1 day ago

> They still have to find people willing to pay for it.

There’s a shitton of companies willing to pay for it.

[–] hdndjsbbs 1 day ago

"fully scalable" except it requires massive capex to build out data centers with limited actual resources to put in those data centers.

[–] RunSet 1 day ago

> Their product is a fully scalable almost human tier intelligence.

"Almost" being a synonym for "not".

[–] IshKebab 1 day ago

It's already much smarter than most humans in a lot of ways.

It's not the same kind of intelligence as humans so it'll probably always have weird areas where it can't do as well (like counting letters in words), but that doesn't mean it isn't smart. If AI were sentient it could point at humans and say "haha look how dumb they are; 99.999% of them can't even write a basic Lean program".

We're way beyond the point where "it's not as smart as humans" is meaningful.

[–] jiveturkey 1 day ago

> get their capex in order first

how are they gonna do that when the half-life of a GPU is 18 months?

[–] Sol- 1 day ago

Spot prices for 5 year old A100s are still going up recently, because inference is so valuable. This meme that GPUs are a quickly depreciating asset is outdated.

[–] dyauspitr 1 day ago

Their lifespans are 2 to 4 years with always on, heavy usage. Even then the problem isn’t the lifespan. It’s the lack of supply right now. I assume with more built out production capacity GPUs get cheaper too. The whole vertical stack needs to get cheaper and it will in time.