And that covers their model training and infrastructure costs?

Is that the case? What about gpt 4.5? o1-pro?

with revenue >2x cost, they can afford to have a miss now and then

If you have a machine that reliably takes $1 and makes $2 you raise debt not equity

care to elaborate? if my machine is doubling my money, why do I have to raise debt?

Presumably there is some time component, i.e you need to use the machine quickly or risk losing it.

Also, it's better to double $2 instead of $1, and then pay back that $1.1 and end up with $2.9 instead of $2.

But it was a more facetious comment than I would have preferred to make, I actually went to delete it but you got in too quickly.

There are many reasons it's wrong, too, eg. at some level of risk debt becomes more expensive or impossible

But the intent of the comment was to say that if you owned as sure a thing as the GP proposed you'd do what you could to avoid selling parts of it.

So their CFO's publicly voiced concerns are unwarranted?

The efficient market hypothesis has taken a real beating in the age of tech industry anti-gravity valuations.

until it doesn't.

scaling laws are a power law, you can only stay ahead for so long when each minor improvement gets exponentially more expensive

exactly