How would you test the hypothesis that they're running these like regular businsses versus on a crusade?
I'm just giving the view from an investors point of view -- you don't expect these to eventually run like a normal business where their revenue exceeds their cost. You expect them to make as much revenue as they can while they spend more than the make to get to AGI.
No, I'm genuinely asking for a test. Pursuing ancilliary revenue would, to me, indicate they're behaving more like a business and less like a moonshot.
> giving the view from an investors point of view -- you don't expect these to eventually run like a normal business where their revenue exceeds their cost
I've invested in AI companies. Every pitch material I've seen projects forward to profitability.
I've invested in AI companies too, but I'm not taking about that. I'm talking about foundation model companies (namely OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Google, etc.).
I'm sure the pitches for Anthropic and OpenAI show paths to profit, because you'd have to, and I'm sure the internal docs at Google and Amazon show the same thing, but that doesn't mean it's not a moonshot.
You'd have to show that if you want to get funded at all.
SpaceX is profitable. Mars isn't "the only way" SpaceX's investors "get a return on their capital."
> I'm talking about foundation model companies (namely OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon, Google, etc.)
I am, too. (The private ones, at least.)
> You'd have to show that if you want to get funded at all
Doesn't this undermine the argument that "the people investing in AI companies" expect "the only way they get a return on their capital" is if their horse invents AGI?
