> Google spent over $2 billion to hire away much of the company’s talent, including co-founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, in 2024.
That shouldn't have been a problem given that AI can fully replace talent. The whole company should in theory only have needed a dream and an Anthropic subscription.
That's a long time ago. They should have been able to make a go of it in these hyped times.
I wonder what will happen to all the very personal and sensitive data they (probably) have on users?
Probably auctioned off, like what happened to Spirit Airlines: <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/google-aims-to-boost-ai-with-purchase-of-spirit-airlines-data" rel="nofollow">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/google-aims-to-...</a>
A lot of money moved through different hands, yet it doesn’t seems that nothing of value was created.<p>I wonder how any of this makes sense.
Have you peeked at how the (very complicated) financial markets work?<p>Lot's of people staring at computers moving money and ious around complicated networks within complicated rules making money making money making money.<p>Really progressing humanity forward :/
the rich in society (corps, individuals) are so absurdly rich that they can keep throwing money till something sticks with almost 0 risk. If you believe AI is something civilizationally transformational which it is resonable to believe, then why not throw some money at it.
This seems reductive. Character.ai has > 20 million monthly active users, and a lot of company valuation happens on the basis of user count (which is legitimate, that's not vaporware)
I have the impression that if MAU by itself was sufficient, the company wouldn’t have had to file for bankruptcy.<p>Obviously the company failed to convert its MAU into paying users, despite the fact the token costs greatly declined over the last years.
I disagree that it's reductive. If each user costs more in API tokens then your company isn't valuable. That's what everyone's been screaming from the rooftops about there being a bubble. We certainly use tons of AI at the company I work for, if we were paying full API prices then I would bet we'd be barely using it.
As we saw after the hero Zelenskyy took down Yandex data centers, user count seems to be vaporware in many cases.
welcome to the world of VC startups
Get with the program, numbers go up = ai valuable. Don't look any closer, details are the AI's problem now.
I think it's unfortunate that this is the case and that the service has been treated unfairly in many regards, but c.ai has faced specific problems that other businesses in the space don't, and the basic service isn't going to be marketed towards the more revenue-generating segments like enterprise without making something different out of it.
Boom and bust cycle in startups is so short lately!
Is there this implosion's version of fuckedcompany.com?
Good. Let this be a warning to shit companies with shit products and shit business models.
And so, it begins. The first domino has fallen.<p>I'm gonna go, grab some popcorn and cry a few tears... tears of joy.
[flagged]
[dead]
calling this a domino is pretty funny. "the first tiddlywink has spontaneously disintegrated"
It only takes a pebble to start a landslide.<p>Most pebbles don't start landslides, but almost all landslides started with a pebble.<p>Remember that almost all the "value" in AI companies right now is based on perception, not reported profits.
[dead]