Your track record is pretty relevant when evaluating this kind of stream of consciousness writing. You have a process, and that process is going to produce a consistent quality. And your track record us one of misrepresenting sources, making trivial logic errors, having a total inanbility to read financial statements correctly, and in general having no expertise in any of the things you write about. (Or rather, any of the things you write that surface on this site.)
> I'm afraid you misread what I said, likely because you (and I quote) "spot-checked a few paragraphs."
I quoted what you wrote, it wasn't out of context, and it was obvious nonsense. That you can't catch such obvious nonsense is exactly why nothing you write can be trusted.
> One of the problems OpenAI has is that their cost of revenue - and we don't know it to be exact - is extremely high, higher than the revenue they're actually gaining, otherwise known as an "operating loss." As a result, even if they increase revenue, they'll actually lose more money. On top of that, the argument I was making is that if there's a race to the bottom (one that's already started), they will have to cut costs, making them less money even if they get more customers.
None of that seems to bear any relation to what you actually wrote: "As a result, OpenAI's revenue might climb, but it's likely going to climb by reducing the cost of its services rather than its own operating costs". That is you claiming that reducing the cost of its services would increase revenue.
That is not you talking about operating income, or margin, or cost of revenue. These words have actual meaning, you can't just randomly one for another and expect it to make sense. Again, a recurring pattern.
> I too read publicly-available data, and my source in this case is "Google."
Yes, you already bragged in the article that you know how to read publicly available data, which is why that's the qualifier I used. I don't dispute that you're able to read. I will, however, claim that you either do not understand much what you read or are intentionally choosing to misrepresent that. Let's look at this example:
> In 2023, our total GHG emissions were 14.3 million tCO2e, representing a 13% year-overyear increase and a 48% increase compared to our 2019 target base year. This result was primarily due to increases in data center energy consumption and supply chain emissions. As we further integrate AI into our products, reducing emissions may be challenging due to increasing energy demands from the greater intensity of AI compute, and the emissions associated with the expected increases in our technical infrastructure investment.
What part of that supports your claim of AI being the cause of the 48% increase? None of it. It is only attributed to "supply chain emissions" and "data center energy consumption". The mention of AI is entirely forward-looking. Let's take it for granted that you indeed read the text you copy-pasted. Why is your claim about what it says so obviously incorrect?
Did you really not understand the text? It's not that complex. Did you understand it and just lie about it because it supported the narrative you had in mind, and nobody checks the sources anyway? Seems like a bad plan. Either way, it again demonstrates that you are not cut out for doing any kind of analysis.
> I'm afraid you misread what I said, likely because you (and I quote) "spot-checked a few paragraphs."
I quoted what you wrote, it wasn't out of context, and it was obvious nonsense. That you can't catch such obvious nonsense is exactly why nothing you write can be trusted.
> One of the problems OpenAI has is that their cost of revenue - and we don't know it to be exact - is extremely high, higher than the revenue they're actually gaining, otherwise known as an "operating loss." As a result, even if they increase revenue, they'll actually lose more money. On top of that, the argument I was making is that if there's a race to the bottom (one that's already started), they will have to cut costs, making them less money even if they get more customers.
None of that seems to bear any relation to what you actually wrote: "As a result, OpenAI's revenue might climb, but it's likely going to climb by reducing the cost of its services rather than its own operating costs". That is you claiming that reducing the cost of its services would increase revenue.
That is not you talking about operating income, or margin, or cost of revenue. These words have actual meaning, you can't just randomly one for another and expect it to make sense. Again, a recurring pattern.
> I too read publicly-available data, and my source in this case is "Google."
Yes, you already bragged in the article that you know how to read publicly available data, which is why that's the qualifier I used. I don't dispute that you're able to read. I will, however, claim that you either do not understand much what you read or are intentionally choosing to misrepresent that. Let's look at this example:
> In 2023, our total GHG emissions were 14.3 million tCO2e, representing a 13% year-overyear increase and a 48% increase compared to our 2019 target base year. This result was primarily due to increases in data center energy consumption and supply chain emissions. As we further integrate AI into our products, reducing emissions may be challenging due to increasing energy demands from the greater intensity of AI compute, and the emissions associated with the expected increases in our technical infrastructure investment.
What part of that supports your claim of AI being the cause of the 48% increase? None of it. It is only attributed to "supply chain emissions" and "data center energy consumption". The mention of AI is entirely forward-looking. Let's take it for granted that you indeed read the text you copy-pasted. Why is your claim about what it says so obviously incorrect?
Did you really not understand the text? It's not that complex. Did you understand it and just lie about it because it supported the narrative you had in mind, and nobody checks the sources anyway? Seems like a bad plan. Either way, it again demonstrates that you are not cut out for doing any kind of analysis.