Stability will most likely make him CEO.
Sure some people do ‘jump off the burning platform’, but most like to have some alternative options worked out.
Now? I'm not so sure. Many have begun to sell their stakes on the secondary market. Enterprise customers aren't biting.
If Nvidia stock corrects significantly in the future, that will be the end of the road for almost all major AI startups, which are essentially money funnelling schemes for pension/family offices/hedge funds who are long Nvidia.
edit: It appears some people below are struggling to make the connection so allow me to assist in your understanding of the bigger picture: large funds use VCs as money mules to increase Nvidia GPU sales through investments in AI startups and this is not sustainable. If VCs are selling their stake on secondary market, if large funds are unloading their shares, if executives are cashing out their stock options, who is left to buy the bags? This I will leave as an exercise for the confused.
The future trajectory of AI isn't tied to Nvidia's stock in the same way the web didn't thrive or die on Cisco being the most valuable company in the world 24 years ago.
Even if that doesn't happen, there will be a lot of consolidation and bankruptcies when AI funding dries up when category winners become clear and investors cur their losses - the same happened suddenly when the dot-com bubble burst, and little more gently with "web 2.0" startups
If no training breakthrough occurs, then your second option is much more likely.
I was thinking along the lines of how Sun Microsystems and big-iron were dethroned by good-enough commodity x86 servers + Linux. The two coexisted... for a short while.
Much of the problem with PC software at the time was one of scaling. Getting software to use multiple processors effectively took decades, but the cost difference and ability to actually get the hardware cheap allowed it to win the market... then grow back into systems with hundreds of cores and terabytes of memory because the needs for big iron didn't go away.
With AI/training/LLMs/NNs scale, at least appears, intrinsic. We see this in the animal world. We see insects with a very basic brain capable of interacting with the world and surviving. Then we see mammals with larger brains capable of far more as the scale/complexity/interconnectivity of their brains increases. At least from what we can tell, throwing more power at any given problem will give us a better solution.
Recognizing value isn't "Rabid fanaticism" lol.
I really shouldn't have to explain how this bubble ends.
Second:
> allow me to assist in your understanding of the bigger picture: large funds use VCs as money mules to increase Nvidia GPU sales through investments in AI startups and this is not sustainable.
You have to be trolling (or I'm misunderstanding?) if you're arguing that a large proportion of VC investments are at the direction of LPs who are long NVIDIA, for the sole purpose of furthering that long.
> if large funds are unloading their shares, if executives are cashing out their stock options, who is left to buy the bags?
Literally the buyers purchasing the shares that the large funds and executives are selling.
> Literally the same people are left with the bag after each bubble
People who buy stocks based on hype, feed bull runs, and proceed to hold and try to time the market, "coincidentally" are usually left holding their bags. That in no way implies any kind of rigging beyond the basic dynamics of the stock market.
So he may have a blank check but not nearly enough to build an OpenAI competitor.
Would love to see him at IBM with full use of their quantum systems.
Lol no. There is about ~$500B in VC dollars, not to mention $1.2T in buyout dry powder still floating around. Not to mention venture funds raised continue to grow YoY.
https://www.bain.com/globalassets/noindex/2024/bain_report_g...
Many of the VCS are over-exposed and still need to have funds to cover follow-on investments in the space. Not buying that there is the widespread appetite to fund a multi-billion new startup like there was a year or two ago.
I’m picturing a Wild Wild West-style mad scientist, creating a steampunk army from old spare parts from Big Blue and rising up to challenge the cyber people.
No VC who wants anything to do with OpenAI would invest in Ilya.
Ilya represents the anti-OpenAI ethos. So it would only be a VC who would be comfortable publicly being an anti-OpenAI VC, which is not that many.
Can you elaborate more on this? What are some of the things the anti-OpenAI ethos stands for? And why do you think Ilya represents that given he was such a major part of OpenAI for so long?
Again, why would any VC give Ilya money if that in any way signals that they are supporting someone who tried to oust the CEO of OpenAI from within? They wouldn't.
He's brilliant, which means someone will take a leap of faith, but he badly, badly damaged his brand as a leader going forward.
> Sam Altman is a prolific liar who attempted to oust a board member by spreading different lies to different people
Correct, it would be bad judgement. Because if he really believe in that statement, that Sam Altman is a hyper competent liar and manipulator, doing what Ilya did just led to Sam getting the keys to the kingdom.
This shows extraordinary incompetence from him and the rest of the board.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...