You are correct, but they are following a model pioneered by private equity firms. From Gemini:

Broadcom operates a public business model heavily inspired by private equity strategies ...

Let me be clear: Broadcom did not buy VMWare to go into the virtualization business!

They bought them with the following plan:

1. Jack up the prices (by an insane amount) while reducing costs in extreme ways
2. Most customers are large enterprise users: they will change eventually ... but it will take the time, and in the meantime they will pay
3. Eventually everyone leaves VMWare ... but Broadcom (or rather the people behind it) have already pocketed enough from step #2 to pay for acquiring VMWare in the first place, plus a profit
4. VMWare, even with few/no customers, still has tons of assets like real estate: you liquidate all that and now you've made a massive profit over what it cost to buy VMWare

This was not some secret: it's a playbook Broadcom has used on acquisitions before. Maintaining a virtualization company was never their goal: it was to make money fleecing the company's corpse.

Dude, in what other (non-AI situation) would you encourage a company to not report a future mass-shooting?

Forty bucks lets you turn pages on a non-paper device. What a world we live in.

That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

It really depends where you are talking about. In Kansas or Montana, can you rent an extra room relatively cheaply? Sure, probably for $500.

Can you do the same thing in New York or the San Francisco Bay Area? Only if you want to pay an extra $1k+ more in rent.

That sounds like the future of economics ... if unchecked by democracy.

No one is getting fired for doing what Altman told them to do. These failures aren't legit, they are theater to justify regulations ...

... regulations that would create a moat Open AI desperately needs around it's business, if it wants to be able to pay back the INCREDIBLY HUGE LOANS it needs to repay in the next year or two.

I know you're being flippant, but I'm referring to California's attorney general (who had been VERY vocal about pursuing this ... and who had been leading the charge on this lawsuit).

He capitulated after fighting hard and people were like "why would you do that?" Answer: BECAUSE GAVIN NEWSOM MADE HIM.

The CA attorney general buckled because of pressure from Gavin Newsom (who is worried that falling employment levels in CA might damage his run for president in a few years).

Again GAVIN NEWSOM is to blame. When he runs for president in a few years, remember it was GAVIN NEWSOM who betrayed America and forced his attorney general to let the Paramount deal through. GAVIN NEWSOME.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

They've NEVER profited off anything they've ever done. Open AI and the other frontier AI companies operate at a (INCREDIBLY HUGE) deficit!

Their entire business model requires them to grow by like 20x AND lower their costs to 1/20th where they are now (or something like that, not those exact numbers). If they can't do that, they literally will not be able to pay their bills in a few years.

It's a house of cards predicated on the assumption one company will dominate a huge new market AND get their costs way down, and THEN they will make huge profits for years on that market. If that doesn't happen, the subprime mess will look like child's play compared to what happens to the frontier companies (and likely the rest of the economy with them).