On Shark Tank if you walk in and say “I have no revenue, no viable business model, and an idea that’s easily copied in a space that’s rapidly marching towards commoditization. I’m asking for $5 billion for 25% of my company.” You’d be laughed off the set.
In the increasingly frothy world of GenAI that’s a Wednesday and you get the cheque.
If it looks like a bubble and smells like a bubble…
The tech is cool, but investors are about to lose their shirts in this space.
If it's actually that easy, why don't you do it?
Are you seriously just leaving $5 billion on the table?
I'll tell you why you won't. Because you wouldn't get it. Because it's not that easy.
Mira Murati is not some rando off the street. Ilya Sutskever is not some rando.
Zuckerberg is not paying Millions to randos of the street to come work for meta.
Nothing gets people to care so much about VC losses as does a 10 figure check!
Seriously, this stuff is great. A lot of people are getting rich, and I'm sure some value will be created out of it. LPs will be the ones holding the bag but thankfully we don't have a tradition of bailing them out like banks, so what do I care? In the meantime I benefit from VC subsidized coding assistants.
Tell me one unique skill, from any of those individuals you quoted, that is worth even 0,01% of $5 billion, for a non existent company with a non existent product.
You mean, "I have no revenue and no business model but I was the CTO of one of the most important technical companies of this generation, we put out one of the fastest growing SaaS products of all time in a completely new technical category."- not sure how much more signal you would need than that. I don't really get why anyone would be confused about why they are throwing money at her. It's an extremely large amount of money, but it's not as if she has no track record.
It is a bubble, of course, but this person would get $100m round in a non-bubble.
When proposing a model for evaluating startup investments -- or any decision-making framework -- it’s useful to run a kind of regression test.
Would Shark Tank have funded the most successful startups of the past decade? In many cases, no. They famously passed on companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Dropbox early on (sometimes indirectly via pitch decks or missed introductions), and even directly rejected DoorDash and Cameo, both of which went on to become unicorns. In other cases, they offered terms that, if accepted, would likely have made follow-on funding difficult.
That doesn't mean every GenAI deal today is wise. But pointing to Shark Tank as a benchmark for rational investing is a very selective filter. Historically, it’s missed more home runs than it’s hit.
Business plan, revenue, people: these are all valid signals to form an investment hypothesis. People often outweighs all others wrt early stage companies.
You would have been a fool to invest in apple in the late 90s on any other signal than the return of Steve Jobs. That era created many rich fools.
Will file your comment under: People who forget VCs regularly burn hundreds of millions of other people’s money, chasing hype. Also...90% of startups, and that is what Thinking Machines is, fail.
On the other hand, if for whatever reason some top tier soccer/football/basketball/etc. went to shark tank and said «I want to release my own sportswear brand», they’d probably get their funding. In fact, they’d probably have investors lined up.
Same thing here. Mira is a top tier, high-profile person in the AI space. So investors lined up.
Investors are investing just as much in the person/team as what they are building. What they build will change, but having a good team is all the difference.
Correct, but they're not profitable, rely on quickly depreciating capital assets and loads of tech employees to maintain their services, so it's hard for me to believe that there's a sustainable business here for them.
And like, if anyone's gonna win it should be Google because of their ability to push capital into this for a long time, their world class infrastructure and their cost advantage by having their chips in house. But I have faith in their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Could somebody explain why there is so much negativity towards Thinking Machines in this thread? I realize that they haven't publicly announced a product yet but presumably the VCs have some idea of what Thinking Machines is building, and they have some pretty significant OpenAI talent on board, including Murati herself. Some amount of skepticism is warranted, of course, but a lot of these comments read as closer to hostility.
True. People here can be like this. I have not forgotten even the greatest juice maker of all times, Juicero was similarly disparaged with all this negativity.
> Could somebody explain why there is so much negativity towards Thinking Machines in this thread?
I think it lies at the intersection of a lot of topics where HN comments are hostile: VCs, large fundraising, AI, OpenAI related employees. These are all topics where HN comments are more hostile than pragmatic.
Most of the hostility is just a proxy for “VCs bad” banter.
It's nothing to do with Thinking Machines as a company, it's to do with a VC that's content to bet two billion dollars on a company that has shown absolutely nothing, and the sorry state of affairs that represents.
> It's nothing to do with Thinking Machines as a company, it's to do with a VC that's content to bet two billion dollars on a company that has shown absolutely nothing, and the sorry state of affairs that represents.
Why does it represent a "sorry state of affairs"?
VCs are risking money they manage, it's not like they're putting anyone else at risk. Do we really prefer a world in which we don't take risks to develop new technology?
The VC sector is probably an order of magnitude smaller then, say, fashion. Isn't money better spent taking risks to develop new technologies that have a chance to legitimately change the world for the better?
Note: If you think the technology could be a negative (which, to some extent I do because of the elements of AI safety, that's a separate argument. Not sure that that's what you're referring to though.)
I have a pretty dim view of VCS, or at least a16z, after seeing some of the awful blockchain tech startups they were throwing money at during the last bubble
This place used to be a place for hackers and founders. Now it is mostly a place for middle aged software engineers who hate someone else to success, change and hope for the future of Linux desktop. Thinking Machines presents both change and success .
Thinking Machines represent the new elite. People with the right pedigree that can raise billions with only an idea. If they fail, they’ll get paid anyway - and they’ll become billionaires.
It is a position that is completely unreachable for 99.9999% of people even in tech.
It is of course easy to write off critics as jealous has-beens and bozos.
My opinion: AI is taking all the money that could be spent on cool advancements that could give the average person hope and putting it towards a pipe dream. Why not be hostile towards the perceived death of an industry you love?
The whole system has gone crazy because of the wealthy having so much that the current game of coming up with stupid stories (AGI, Self Driving Cars, Robots that can do your household chores, Crypto) to convince people that a company can be worth 50-100 times earnings or valueless internet points will go up in price forever! There is no way these companies can possibly meet these expectations but the money sloshing around in the system makes it possible for rich people to keep believing (religiously) as there are no investments actually left for them to earn real money from a population that increasingly has nothing and earns less and less of the pie while valueless investments skyrocket.
> but presumably the VCs have some idea of what Thinking Machines is building
you imply that VCs are rational because bet their own money, which in current complicated world probably is not true. VC funds get money from complicated funnel likely including my/your retirement account and country public debt, VC managers likely receive bonuses for closed deals and not long term gains which may materialize in 10 years. So, investing 2B into non-existing product with unclear market fit/team/tech moat smells very strongly.
So your position is that a VC will invest $2B in a startup on vibes alone without having any idea what they're building, because it is not literally their money? That seems like a significantly stronger and less plausible claim than mine, which his merely that a prospective $2B investor has access to more information about the company's plans than we do and that their investment is at least some indication that there is a real product in the pipeline.
I think most people aren’t aware that as CTO Murati can take a large chunk of the credit for OpenAI’s success. Her skills were mostly in deft technical management, a skill often under appreciated by nerds. Her success here is going to heavily depend on her ability to attract the right talent.
I don't think that's fair. The company was founded around 6 months ago and already has a valuation of 12B even though barely anyone outside of AI has heard of them, and I bet almost nobody even here could name their product. It's not that people think she's untalented, but rather, she'd have to be superhuman to justify that by herself.
Because connections and social signalling matter more than ideas among the rich of the world. Only some people can get such disproportionate advantages.
Because it looks like VC are spendings ridicoulous amounts of money for hype while many startups with actual products and a product market fit struggle to attract investors because their product is not related to transformers.
It makes perfect sense... Why spend time and money on building a product in hope of attracting VCs that may like it? Instead present your idea in an intentionally vague way that makes everyone's imagination fill in the blanks in the most favorable way.
> The fundraise also saw participation from AI chip giant Nvidia
This is really obvious 'round-tripping' no? Nvidia invests in startups that are going to spend a majority of their funds on GPUs, Nvidia's revenue goes up, Nvidia's stock goes up, Nvidia makes more 'investments' in startups who use that investment to continue the cycle?
No different than investment banks in the US loaning money to ukraine so they can get patriot missiles. This generates two income streams for the US ( interest payments on the debt and money to RTX for the missiles). Trump gets a cut on both of these monies (tax on income).
This is why the Us is pro Israel as well. They are a good customer to the military industrial complex.
Now if we could only get japan, ASEAN, S.Korea into a conflict w China over taiwan we could ramp up this model - but we’ll need to build drone factories to usurp the the cheap turkish, polish, ukrainian, and russian suppliers.
And the additional bonus is that all this has to be transacted in dollars giving our currency preeminence so we can print more of them and not suffer inflation- even tho there are more dollars chasing the same goods- its happening symmetrically around the world because everyone has to use them.
I've been worried about the US abandoning Japan and this radically shifting the power centers in the world. But, the way you describe it sounds like I should not worry. At least, as long as I trust the weapons manufacturers to keep things stable so they can extract their new profit opportunities. I still feel a tinge of worry.
To an extend, sure, but not in the "obvious" way you suggest, because that's very illegal. Any arrangement for Nvidia to obviously and directly fund startups to clearly funnel money back through purchases would quickly attract scrutiny from auditors, regulators, and co-investors.
Sidenote: Nvidia has been caught round-tripping before, way back.
Looking at the valuation I don't get how they would not be round-tripping and otherwise cooking the books a lot right now (not necesarily limited to this case, but more in general).
How do you think VC firms work? There is no "own money". Their entire business is getting rich people, institutional investors, governments, pension funds, endowments etc. to give them money and investing that money in startups, keeping a cut for themselves.
Why do you ask me? One of the top comments assumes that it would be crazy to assume recklessness on the part of a16z. I point out that they are insulated from the consequences on multiple levels.
None? I think almost all VC partners are vested in their funds. They have skin in the game. Yes, they do profit from managing the money of others, but I think it's rare for them not to be putting their own money on the line.
YC is first and foremost a startup accelerator so it makes sense that entrepreneurship would be part of the discussion that people here are interested in.
You are right! Just like how a certain contingent flags posts that discuss any appalling misuse of technology under the pretext that "oh, it's politics, etc.", you should do the same for these scammy news items: flag + hide.
I don't know that it'll work, but it is worth trying.
I think it takes a lot of temerity and hubris to look at a 2B raise and assume it's all hype. A16Z has certainly had some misses, but one assumes there actually is some product they're showing behind closed doors that makes this round much more reasonable than it appears from the outside.
If something makes no sense, seems totally crazy, and is being done by a crowd of extremely smart people, you can only assume one of two things: they are actually crazy and frittering away 2B on hype or, just maybe, there's something we're not aware of. If there are only two camps: optimistic and naive or pessimistic and dismissive, I'll choose naive every day of the week.
Anyways, congrats to Thinking Machines and here's hoping they do have something awesome up their sleeve!
Theranos was worth $9B in 2013 money, and it latet turned out that they had literally nothing but hype. Enron was posting $100B revenue the year before it went bankrupt. Bernie Madoff's fund had huge banks as institutional investors. Magic Leap was valued at $4.6B and had some purportedly amazing demos behind closed doors that anyone who witnessed them thought would revolutionize entertainment.
While these are not necessarily typical cases, they show that it's absolutely possible to have gigantic valuations raised from industry experts with nothing to show for it, if you're good enough at lying.
The weird thing about Theranos is that every single expert who knew about the technical details of blood testing basically called out the BS from the get go.
Blood testing for a single condition can involve blood separation via centrifuges, application of various chemical solutions, a multi-step process using varios test strips (each with different specificities/sensitivities). Not to mention some of the offending markers might be so rare in blood that you'd have to draw multiple vials just to get a statistically significant amount of markers.
Reducing just a single one of these tests to an instant test that works with a drop of blood would be a major breakthrough, subject to various medical awards (and lengthy medical trials).
I don't disagree with your broader point, but have spent enough time with enough a16z partners to say they're just people. Not outright stupid, but not extremely smart, either. And their error rate is pretty high.
Which...to some extent is by design. It's part of a VC's job to make bad bets. Sometimes the price of getting into a deal at all is getting in on insane terms, but you still do it because that one investment could return the entire fund. Maybe Thinking Machines is a winner, maybe it's another Clubhouse. We'll see.
I do agree for $2bn, but it’s also well known that US and in particular SV VCs will fund ideas and people, I.e. potential, whereas everywhere else funds results.
It’s that culture that creates some spectacular hits, and a vast number of misses. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a different approach and means that the funding doesn’t necessarily suggest the results one might expect.
> A16Z has certainly had some misses, but one assumes there actually is some product
They don’t need to show a product. It’s been demonstrated that with capital and some skill you can train a foundation model. A16Z has the former. Murati has the latter.
> they are actually crazy and frittering away 2B on hype
This assumes that being careless with billions can only ever be crazy.
If you're already set for life, why not gamble (including at completely irrational levels) for even more insane amounts of money when the whole thing is just a crazy house of mirrors. Yes, there's value at the heart, but there's also crazy amounts of money being funneled in, lots of opportunity for chaos, lots of chances for legal rug pulls. All of it inflated even further by a fervor of carelessness for any kind of consequences - things like the stock market are completely removed from any kind of fundamentals.
In a fun house of mirrors, that 2 billion could be 2 cents, or it could be 2 trillion. Buy the ticket and have fun!
Isn’t this the perspective that leads to all bubbles?
What kind of temerity and hubris would it take to believe that the ratings agencies were colluding with the banks to give AAA to Mortgage Backer Securities?
> one assumes there actually is some product they're showing
Can it simply be that anyone who wants to create new competitive models at this point needs billions for training? This isn't a saas where you can whip up a prototype in a month. Rather than having a product to show, I'd guess it's more about an experienced team and some plausible-sounding research ideas.
Could be, or it could be a simple flawed net present value calculation, similar to Effective Altruism.
SBF said if he had a die and it had a 99% chance of killing everyone and a 1% chance of making the world 1 million times happier he would roll the die. Repeatedly. And Silicon Valley loved him.
I think AI is a similar calculation. Humans are tearing themselves apart and the only thing worth betting on is AI that can improve itself, self replicate and end scarcity. I believe that these VCs believe that AI is the only chance to save humanity.
And if you believe that, the net present value of AGI is basically infinite.
> Humans are tearing themselves apart and the only thing worth betting on is AI that can [...] end scarcity
Scarcity, wow...
- There is no scarcity in the rich world by historical standards.
- There is extreme poverty in large parts of the world, no amount of human intelligence has fixed this and therefore no amount of AI will. It is primarily not a question of intelligence.
- On top of that "ending scarcity" is impossible due to the hedonistic treadmill and the way the human mind works as well as the fact that with or without AI there will still be disease, aging and death.
Readit News
In the increasingly frothy world of GenAI that’s a Wednesday and you get the cheque.
If it looks like a bubble and smells like a bubble…
The tech is cool, but investors are about to lose their shirts in this space.
I'll tell you why you won't. Because you wouldn't get it. Because it's not that easy.
Mira Murati is not some rando off the street. Ilya Sutskever is not some rando. Zuckerberg is not paying Millions to randos of the street to come work for meta.
Seriously, this stuff is great. A lot of people are getting rich, and I'm sure some value will be created out of it. LPs will be the ones holding the bag but thankfully we don't have a tradition of bailing them out like banks, so what do I care? In the meantime I benefit from VC subsidized coding assistants.
It is a bubble, of course, but this person would get $100m round in a non-bubble.
QI meaning Quem Indica, meaning the best thing in the world is not technical skill, but who you know. This is what stuff like this looks like to me.
When proposing a model for evaluating startup investments -- or any decision-making framework -- it’s useful to run a kind of regression test.
Would Shark Tank have funded the most successful startups of the past decade? In many cases, no. They famously passed on companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Dropbox early on (sometimes indirectly via pitch decks or missed introductions), and even directly rejected DoorDash and Cameo, both of which went on to become unicorns. In other cases, they offered terms that, if accepted, would likely have made follow-on funding difficult.
That doesn't mean every GenAI deal today is wise. But pointing to Shark Tank as a benchmark for rational investing is a very selective filter. Historically, it’s missed more home runs than it’s hit.
You would have been a fool to invest in apple in the late 90s on any other signal than the return of Steve Jobs. That era created many rich fools.
Same thing here. Mira is a top tier, high-profile person in the AI space. So investors lined up.
People have been saying this for the better part of 10 years
And like, if anyone's gonna win it should be Google because of their ability to push capital into this for a long time, their world class infrastructure and their cost advantage by having their chips in house. But I have faith in their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think it lies at the intersection of a lot of topics where HN comments are hostile: VCs, large fundraising, AI, OpenAI related employees. These are all topics where HN comments are more hostile than pragmatic.
Most of the hostility is just a proxy for “VCs bad” banter.
In the case of a bubble, hostility is pragmatism.
Of course, nobody knows that it's a bubble, but nobody knows it's not a bubble either.
Why does it represent a "sorry state of affairs"?
VCs are risking money they manage, it's not like they're putting anyone else at risk. Do we really prefer a world in which we don't take risks to develop new technology?
The VC sector is probably an order of magnitude smaller then, say, fashion. Isn't money better spent taking risks to develop new technologies that have a chance to legitimately change the world for the better?
Note: If you think the technology could be a negative (which, to some extent I do because of the elements of AI safety, that's a separate argument. Not sure that that's what you're referring to though.)
It is a position that is completely unreachable for 99.9999% of people even in tech.
It is of course easy to write off critics as jealous has-beens and bozos.
you imply that VCs are rational because bet their own money, which in current complicated world probably is not true. VC funds get money from complicated funnel likely including my/your retirement account and country public debt, VC managers likely receive bonuses for closed deals and not long term gains which may materialize in 10 years. So, investing 2B into non-existing product with unclear market fit/team/tech moat smells very strongly.
Correct. Most VCs are using someone else's money. See Softbank. And making extremely poor judgements on how to use that money.
(Sure -- that background is somewhat self earned.)
Murati: “hold my beer”.
(They could have just as well picked Skynet.)
Deleted Comment
> significant OpenAI talent on board, including Murati herself.
because ppl on this website don't consider her a 'talent'.
"Presumably" they have "some" idea. Oh really? Are you "sure" about that? Is that a $12B type confidence?
Deleted Comment
This is really obvious 'round-tripping' no? Nvidia invests in startups that are going to spend a majority of their funds on GPUs, Nvidia's revenue goes up, Nvidia's stock goes up, Nvidia makes more 'investments' in startups who use that investment to continue the cycle?
This is why the Us is pro Israel as well. They are a good customer to the military industrial complex.
Now if we could only get japan, ASEAN, S.Korea into a conflict w China over taiwan we could ramp up this model - but we’ll need to build drone factories to usurp the the cheap turkish, polish, ukrainian, and russian suppliers.
And the additional bonus is that all this has to be transacted in dollars giving our currency preeminence so we can print more of them and not suffer inflation- even tho there are more dollars chasing the same goods- its happening symmetrically around the world because everyone has to use them.
Looking at the valuation I don't get how they would not be round-tripping and otherwise cooking the books a lot right now (not necesarily limited to this case, but more in general).
Very strong Y2K bubble vibes.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/andreessen-horowitz...
Moreover, if some banks will fail in the aftermath, they'll be bailed out at the expense of you know whom.
I don't know that it'll work, but it is worth trying.
Yes, she was there at OpenAI and by all accounts a super respected non researcher.
Clearly she's incredible, her reputation proceeds her etc. but is operational strength (being a good exec) really what gets to AGI?
Feels almost like cargo-culting.
1. Researchers
2. Productivity-enhancing things in the org (either technical stuff like frameworks/optimisations or nebulous social things like better collaboration)
3. Amount of available compute.
4. Luck
And then the past experience with openAI should help a lot with doing a good job of #1 and #2 even if it is just being a competent executive.
Maybe the product she’s pitched has massive commercial potential.
> Feels almost like cargo-culting.
Why almost?
If something makes no sense, seems totally crazy, and is being done by a crowd of extremely smart people, you can only assume one of two things: they are actually crazy and frittering away 2B on hype or, just maybe, there's something we're not aware of. If there are only two camps: optimistic and naive or pessimistic and dismissive, I'll choose naive every day of the week.
Anyways, congrats to Thinking Machines and here's hoping they do have something awesome up their sleeve!
While these are not necessarily typical cases, they show that it's absolutely possible to have gigantic valuations raised from industry experts with nothing to show for it, if you're good enough at lying.
Blood testing for a single condition can involve blood separation via centrifuges, application of various chemical solutions, a multi-step process using varios test strips (each with different specificities/sensitivities). Not to mention some of the offending markers might be so rare in blood that you'd have to draw multiple vials just to get a statistically significant amount of markers.
Reducing just a single one of these tests to an instant test that works with a drop of blood would be a major breakthrough, subject to various medical awards (and lengthy medical trials).
I don't disagree with your broader point, but have spent enough time with enough a16z partners to say they're just people. Not outright stupid, but not extremely smart, either. And their error rate is pretty high.
Which...to some extent is by design. It's part of a VC's job to make bad bets. Sometimes the price of getting into a deal at all is getting in on insane terms, but you still do it because that one investment could return the entire fund. Maybe Thinking Machines is a winner, maybe it's another Clubhouse. We'll see.
It’s that culture that creates some spectacular hits, and a vast number of misses. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a different approach and means that the funding doesn’t necessarily suggest the results one might expect.
They don’t need to show a product. It’s been demonstrated that with capital and some skill you can train a foundation model. A16Z has the former. Murati has the latter.
This assumes that being careless with billions can only ever be crazy.
If you're already set for life, why not gamble (including at completely irrational levels) for even more insane amounts of money when the whole thing is just a crazy house of mirrors. Yes, there's value at the heart, but there's also crazy amounts of money being funneled in, lots of opportunity for chaos, lots of chances for legal rug pulls. All of it inflated even further by a fervor of carelessness for any kind of consequences - things like the stock market are completely removed from any kind of fundamentals.
In a fun house of mirrors, that 2 billion could be 2 cents, or it could be 2 trillion. Buy the ticket and have fun!
What kind of temerity and hubris would it take to believe that the ratings agencies were colluding with the banks to give AAA to Mortgage Backer Securities?
Can it simply be that anyone who wants to create new competitive models at this point needs billions for training? This isn't a saas where you can whip up a prototype in a month. Rather than having a product to show, I'd guess it's more about an experienced team and some plausible-sounding research ideas.
SBF said if he had a die and it had a 99% chance of killing everyone and a 1% chance of making the world 1 million times happier he would roll the die. Repeatedly. And Silicon Valley loved him.
I think AI is a similar calculation. Humans are tearing themselves apart and the only thing worth betting on is AI that can improve itself, self replicate and end scarcity. I believe that these VCs believe that AI is the only chance to save humanity.
And if you believe that, the net present value of AGI is basically infinite.
Scarcity, wow...
- There is no scarcity in the rich world by historical standards.
- There is extreme poverty in large parts of the world, no amount of human intelligence has fixed this and therefore no amount of AI will. It is primarily not a question of intelligence.
- On top of that "ending scarcity" is impossible due to the hedonistic treadmill and the way the human mind works as well as the fact that with or without AI there will still be disease, aging and death.
If you were in the top 1% and you don’t need labor anymore because it can be automated.
Even in post scarcity some people will want as much as possible for themselves, if history is any baseline.
Yeah, similar to Trump administration may have had some misses but extremely smart people are doing great things.