739 karma · joined September 7, 2023
[0] older versions had Xtensa cores, not RISC-V.
Just a suggestion, but alternatively you could also accept that in reality, decomissioning actually is expensive.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_Greifswald (you have to translate that page yourself, the English version doesn't contain the relevant information)
Well sure, but the alternatives aren't really affected by this, because they don't have to be planned and financed these such long time frames. So this is a problem for nuclear. The core technology seldomly is the deciding factor for these things.
The burden of proof that this isn't just a publicity stunt again is squarely on them.
Interest alone, at assumed 5%, amounts to about $150 billions per year. That's probably higher than the combined AI revenue of the top 3 providers.
This is a corporation with tens of thousands of software developers. If they wanted to do better, they could. As always: If the UI is bad for you, that probably means that particular implementation is good for the corporation.
The competition from the open models is so strong now that this seems to be the only way to keep both companies afloat, given their dire financials. OpenAI probably hoped that they can achieve market lead and then lower the training costs (and make inference cheap enough to eventually escape the red numbers), but the opposite is happening: The competition comes closer and closer, thus training has to be kept up with full force, thus the bleeding continues.
But if they can position themselves as too important/dangerous to be available for everyone (thus this incident report and the clever mentioning of GLM 5.2), they could get the military supplier treatment and would be protected from the market.
If we assume a 2026 revenue of 23B (Q1 2026 revenue x4) and costs of 70B (2025 costs * (2026 revenue / 2025 revenue)), even those 25B in cash reserves won't mean much. And this napkin math even ignores their debt obligations. So either they raise money in the range of 50-75B this year (actual money, not datacenter vouchers), or ...
[0] https://www.wheresyoured.at/exclusive-openai-financials/
Edit: Here it is: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/full...
"Forecasting models predicted that the current steep funding cuts could result in more than 14 051 750 (uncertainty interval 8 475 990–19 662 191) additional all-age deaths, including 4 537 157 (3 124 796–5 910 791) in children younger than age 5 years, by 2030."
An additional data point to support that is that emissions intensity per GDP is clearly falling fast for China [3].
[1] https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...
[2] https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...
[3] Chart 75 from here: https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2025/
Absolutely, Germany essentially abandoned its position in industrial leadership solely due to neoliberal ideology. Just compare the trajectories of Germany and China in the last 20 years. One country planned and implemented a proper industrial policy, the other hummed and hawed about the infallibility of the market and thus essentially just gave up.
This is distinctly different than the dot com bubble were people actually were euphoric about the future unfolding before their eyes.
Which is a topic of intense discussion in economics over the last few hundred years, BTW, and the discussion here so far has shockingly few references to those.