When companies go public they must file paperwork disclosing their financials.
Doing so would expose the massive cash burn OpenAI is using. Therefore, Sam Altman can't go public but he also has run out of money.
Enter "whistle blower" Jacob Coxon.
It made no sense how an obscure nobody got 165 million views on his first X post saying AI could kill us all. Then he was on every news station within 48 hours, scaring the public.
This was a psyop to "regulate" the AI companies... aka give them government funding to "protect the public from the dangers of AI."
Anthropic and OpenAI delaying their IPO, because their S-1 will reveal that they are bleeding money, and have no path to profitability.
Solution? "AI slowdown", so they cut costs for training new models.
It has everything to do with IPO, and nothing to do with safety.
There you go... This entire "AI is going to kill us" was an orchestrated psyop.
Dario Amodei was on @FaceNationCBS this morning saying "The government and the public needs to have a stake" in AI and that he wants the entire AI industry regulated.
Translation: We need a taxpayer funded bailout but we'll call it an "investment."
They want government "regulation" because it means protection from the open source Chinese AI models.
As I said, this entire Jacob Coxon media frenzy was an orchestrated psyop to manipulate public opinion into providing a bailout.
Translation: our gross margins are getting competed down to 0 by open source models and our capex burn rate is too high.
Let’s maintain our margins with regulatory capture, ban open source models, and slow down the capex arms race. All with a virtue signaling cherry on top.
David Sacks rarely misses.
Currently the smartest voice around AI regulation.
It's all so logically and obviously laid out in this post.
Let's see what they do and their actions will speak louder than all of their words.
Both my parents have passed away, my kids are both double digits now, and I am not far from 50.
Time is going by in warp speed.
I’m certainly no life expert, but it’s hard for me to imagine if the point isn’t just to be present and collect experiences, I don’t know what it is.
This is the strongest evidence out there that we live in a simulation.
Nobody can explain this.
Like Elon says, this is what video games do. When the player observes or gets closer to an object, more pixels and more information is created.
Whereas the objects in the distance don’t get as much information dedicated to it, because that would be a waste of compute power.
🤯
I know a lot of Bitcoiners.
I know a handful of Bitcoin developers.
I know a few who work on Bitcoin Core.
Something that stands out and I can’t stop thinking about is the drastic difference in perspective between Bitcoiners who have a family and children and those who don’t.
This is not to shame anyone or make one group look better than the other. However, the observation is stark.
A higher average of Bitcoiners without a family and children take Bitcoin much more flippantly. They take larger risks, have a higher time preference, place lower value on the longevity of the Bitcoin project, and are less apt to see the importance of it being exclusively money.
Bitcoiners with family and children take Bitcoin more existentially. They have a stronger consideration for what Bitcoin can offer after they are gone. They care a lot more about the freedom aspects of Bitcoin.
Of course, there will be exceptions to this observation. But the observation is categorically undeniable.
@sama While I appreciate you fighting for user privacy (and agree it’s the right thing to do), why can’t we just anonymize user identity and other sensitive data in the backend?
This would be a happy medium between maintaining user privacy while also retaining chat logs as needed.
In 2040, most of the 21M Bitcoin will be locked in:
• Institutional ETFs
• Sovereign wealth funds
• Corporate treasuries
• Multigenerational family offices
The remaining 99% will be customers, renting exposure forever.
The harvest has already begun.