Noticias
OpenAI Keeps Raising Money | The Motley Fool

OpenAI is projected to lose $5 billion this year.
In this podcast, Motley Fool analyst Jim Gillies and host Mary Long discuss:
- OpenAI’s $157 billion valuation.
- The port strike’s potentially positive impact on two auto parts makers. (Editor’s note: This podcast was recorded before the strike was called off.)
- Changing tastes in the beverage market.
Then Motley Fool analyst Asit Shama and host Ricky Mulvey test out a new rating system on Costco stock.
Like what you hear? You can vote for Motley Fool Money as Signal’s best money and finance podcast.
To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. To get started investing, check out our beginner’s guide to investing in stocks. A full transcript follows the video.
This video was recorded on Oct. 03, 2024.
Mary Long: OpenAI sees some open check folks. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money. I’m Mary Long joined today by the illustrious Jim Gillies. Jim, thanks for being here. You ever been called that before?
Jim Gillies: That is absolutely the first time I’ve ever been called Illustrious, and I’m not sure what to do with it.
Mary Long: Thanks for joining us on the show. You are a valuation guy. I think it’s fair to say so figured we’d open up with some valuation news, OpenAI, which listeners might know that name. It’s the company behind ChatGPT, among other things. They got a new valuation, and that valuation comes out to 157 billion big ones. That is comparable to the likes of Goldman Sachs, Uber, AT&T. It’s also up from the $30,000,000,000 valuation it had about a year ago. I’ll open the floodgates. What do you think of that number?
Jim Gillies: Let’s say, why are you doing this to me? I think the number is absurd. I think the number is unjustifiable. I didn’t say wrong. I may very well be wrong. Maybe right, but the thing is I am from and the reason why I’m a little amused out of the gate is I am one of I think a fairly slowly dying breed. That is, I believe the company is worth the sum of its future cash flows, discounted back at an appropriate discount rate. Very important. Here’s the thing. I have no idea what ChatGPT OpenAI’s future cash flows will be. Neither does anyone else. I have no idea the timing of them, the scale of the size of them, the dilution that’s going to come. Neither does anyone else.
I have no idea what the appropriate discount rate is here. We can make an estimate, but it’s going to be precisely wrong, might even be roughly wrong, might be roughly right. This is clearly the big story of the world really, at this point, from a technology development standpoint. I don’t want to go in politics or anything. But AI is it’s transformational. We’re just not sure how transformational it will be. My history as an investor. We were talking before the show. We were talking a little bit about David Gardner and David Gardner’s style, which and I’ve many times said David Gardner is one of the best investors I’ve ever met. I’ve met Warren Buffett several times. But David’s style is something that often I struggle with because I’m not a venture capitalist thinker, whereas I think he is.
I would assume David would say Jim’s a cash flow thinker. I’m not a cash flow thinker, so I am seeing the world. David has that ability to see where the world is going at least better than I can and so I think it’s important to investor know thyself and follow along with what you are comfortable doing. All of that is a nice way to circle around and go like I would have, if this was public, I know they’re talking about going public at some point. I have no idea how you are applying this magical number to the valuation. We know that there’s no cash generation going on here. We have no idea where the cash is going to come, when it’s going to come. As Buffett likes to say, this goes into the two hard pile for me. It doesn’t go into the two hard pile for the Rule Breaker types, David Gardner types, and that’s great. But I would just walk away from this one because it doesn’t mesh with my style as an investor.
Mary Long: Another big news story circulating in business circles this week is about the port strike that’s happening. We had an e mail from a listener hit our inboxes earlier this morning. This listener, Andy did not know that I’d be chatting with you, but as luck would have it, he specifically asked for you in this e mail. Andy writes in, Andy here, longtime listener and member of both Motley Fool Stock Advisor and Rule Breakers, and also recently subbed to Motley Fool Canadian Services. I’ve got a question about the port strike that’s closed down ports on the US East Coast, and along the Gulf.
Specifically, I’m thinking of companies headquartered in Europe, which make auto parts like Autoliv ticker, ALV or Garrett Motion, ticker GTX. The Illustrious Jim Gillies has spoken about these companies over the past year and so I wonder if you might ask him, how much does he think the port strike will impact those companies at least in the short term and also whether the strike may create a buying opportunity.
Jim Gillies: Well, I don’t like thinking short term. But and Andy thank you for subscribing to the Canadian Services, which is why I’m answering the question. So, Autoliv is in 25 countries, including Canada. There’s a plant down near Windsor Ontario, which is where a lot of auto manufacturing is down near Windsor, Detroit crosses that border. They have worldwide facilities. The same goes for Garrett Motion. They’ve got worldwide facilities. Garrett’s got manufacturing ops in both California and Asia. Anything coming in from Asia is going to come in via the West Coast, not the East Cast. As well, automakers are notorious for their just in time manufacturing techniques.
Most likely, if a car is being assembled in North Carolina or Michigan or Southern Ontario, a lot of the parts are going into it are probably not all, and I’m not going to specifically say. Oh, yeah, Autoliv makes everything in Windsor for things being assembled in Detroit, because I don’t know that. But I would imagine that there is significant just in time issues in the manufacturing setup, that will alleviate some of this. Now, that’s said. I don’t want to minimize the potential impact of the strike. I think the strike could ultimately be very damaging. There’s some footage floating around of the Union lead, which is interesting. He is I think we’ll just say confrontational and aggressive, and I’ll leave it at that.
Mary Long: It’s fair.
Jim Gillies: If you’re a union member, I suppose that’s what you want and your leader, but it doesn’t look good, but I would warn against letting headlines define your investment choices unless unless, as Andy said here, this might be a short term opportunity. Because I think what Andy is not saying, but what I will say is strikes end, like strikes end and so if this does give you opportunity, and what we call this, headline risk gives you opportunities quite often. I could talk about the wisdom of recommending an aircraft Lasso during a pandemic, for example, which I did when all planes were shut down, international travel was shut down. The thesis can essentially be summarized as pandemics end. I don’t know when, probably be a Tuesday, but they end, and when they end, we’ll probably still take planes. The world’s largest aircraft also that would be AerCAP, by the way. The world’s largest aircraft or so will probably have pretty robust demand when it happens.
Mary Long: Less front and center than OpenAI’s, new valuation, and the port strike. Constellation Brands reported this morning? This is the company behind Corona, Modelo, Svedka Vodka, Robert Mondavi Wine. Some of the top line news from their earnings report, overall sales rose. That’s mostly due to their beer business. They saw a lot of weakness in the Wine and Spirits business. They’re also writing off a $2.25 billion impairment loss for that Wine and Spirits business. First up, Jim, what’s eating Constellation’s wine business?
Jim Gillies: I feel that I’m here under false pretenses because I thought were going to talk about Constellation Software, which I hold is the best company in Canada. But no, it’s Constellation Brands.
Mary Long: Wamp.
Jim Gillies: I know, yeah, sad trombone for me.
Mary Long: Maybe be less exciting.
Jim Gillies: Yeah. Look, maybe it’s just a mature industry. Maybe it’s a mature business. I promise this is going to go somewhere. I’ve been to New Zealand. I’ve toured around New Zealand and all the wineries. the one I could not have cared less about, Kim Crawford Wine. Why? ‘Cause it’s big industrial wine made by you guest at Constellation Brands. I think, this is all just going to be riffing here, but maybe people beset with choice are choosing elsewhere. I can tell you, in this house, we don’t drink a lot of wine. Consumption and has been consumption has been going down, just because I think we find as we get older, we don’t appreciate it that much or I don’t want to drop an extra $20 on $20. Someone out there just said $20, Gillies. That’s a terrible bottle of wine, you get to spend up.
We probably drink half or less of what we drank a decade ago. To think I appreciate good wine. Someone professional might call what I like swill, but that’s fine. But, we go to wineries. we’ll go to Niagara, which is fairly close. We’ll go out to British Columbia when we’re there. We’ll go to wineries. I’ve been to wineries in Virginia I’ve been to wineries in California. Like and through the magic of the Internet, I can order what I like if it’s a winery I went to in Napa, and it was a smaller winery. It’s not a big giant corporate winery. But so maybe one thing is people just don’t like mass production wines anymore. Another thing and this might be fairly Canada focused, but I know it’s happening a lot more in your fine country is, you may have heard that cannabis was legalized in Canada across Canada in 2018. One of the things that’s happened as a result of that is there’s a lot of cannabis based beverages, like for people who I guess who don’t want to smoke or whatever, which strikes me as an intelligent choice. For people who are using wine just to relax and laugh with friends or just take the edge off, maybe they’re not drinking wine anymore.
Maybe things have migrated to cannabis beverage versus and wine has become a beverage that you drink with your sar duck breast or rare flank state thing. It’s become more of I don’t know anybody. I’ve not been to a lot of dinner parties since the pandemic, but I’d be pretty surprised if someone served me a cannabis beverage when I went to a dinner party. Then you’ve also got that look, we know with the data saying that younger people are drinking less. those just coming into coming out of their slothful teenage years and into their early 20s and legal drinking age. They’re drinking less and they’re opting away from wine. I can tell you. We had a thing in my house about two years ago with my son who has just turned 20, but drinking age here is 19. There was a medical family situation and I had to call my son. He was at University at the time, and I said, I might need to come get you. It was a Friday night. No drinking.
I have fun, but I might have to come get you because something could go wrong tonight and so I would appreciate you and my son, first off he said, well, Dad, I’m actually at my friend’s house, and the friend that he has is muslims there’s no alcohol in the house, anyway. Then my son is also a body builder. Then I got a five minute pseudo lecture on how alcohol consumption is really detrimental for body builders. I’m like, dude, dude. I appreciate all that. Family medical emergency. I don’t need that now. Stand by and hopefully, I don’t have to come get you. But it’s like, kids, and I see his friends. I see my daughter’s friends, and it’s like I think they’re being more responsible than I was. How about I leave it at that?
Mary Long: So we talk about shifting consumer taste. We mentioned cannabis beverages. This is a consumer brands business. Again, consumer taste change over time. Is the diversification of constellations portfolio, which is a big portfolio? Is that diversification a strength or a weakness here? Because the more things you offer, chances are that some are not going to perform so well.
Jim Gillies: Well, yeah, and the more things you offer, you dilute you want to find the one thing you’re really great at or the two or three things you’re really great at. I often find that when you offer so many choices, none of them will really move the needle, and some will be a disappointment this quarter, and some will be a disappointment next quarter. The other thing is, two, and I was an investor for a brief period of time in Moles encores. Spoiler didn’t go terribly well.
But competitor, and we know that Anheuser-Busch InBev ASB Miller, whatever the hell, they’re calling themselves nowadays. This tends to be a scale business and there’s all these companies, Constellation, Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors. They are just constantly shoving money at at new CapEx and acquisitions, and Maybe the industry is just largely topped out because none of them have been good strong investments. Again, did I mention my Molson Coors foray did not go terribly well. They are their old brands, but, like, there’s no one’s going to challenge beverauge on scale. Maybe Heineken can go and buy Constellation and Acres, but that might bring them within spitting distance, but then it’s not a high growth industry and so it doesn’t really matter to me how many brands you’ve got.
I think most of these companies where they did try to maybe make a foray into the cannabis area, I think most of them lost their hats on that one. Maybe that’s where you should be going, but then again I would say. Well, it’s called weed for a reason, and it’s a commodity product. I think the best thing to do in this space is to say, you know what? I’m going to avoid individual stock risk in this area. I think what I’m going to do is if there’s some exposure in an S&P 500 index fund, I’m going to say, you know what? I’ve got exposure, and I’m happy with that level of exposure.
Mary Long: Jim Gillies, thanks for joining us today on Motley Fool Money. Always a pleasure to have you even though I feel like we were pretty bearish throughout the entirety of today.
Jim Gillies: I don’t think so. I don’t want to be bearish. I think Autoliv and Garrett will be fine. How’s that? I own both.
Mary Long: I set you up for that a little bit because we do have Ricky and Asit talking about Costco in the segment after us and that is something you are certainly not bearish on and I didn’t even give you the opportunity.
Jim Gillies: That is very correct, yes.
Mary Long: I apologize to you.
Jim Gillies: Perfectly fine, and I don’t own enough Costco.
Mary Long: Before we get to the next segment, a humble request. Motley Fool Money is a finalist for Signal’s Best Money and finance broadcast. We’re up against some really great shows from Barns, the Financial Times, and Bloomberg. The winner, though, is determined by your vote. So, if you enjoy this show, all of us here at Motley Fool Money would really appreciate you taking a moment to cast your vote for us. I’ll drop a link in today’s show note so that you can do that if you’re so inclined. Heads up, you’ll need to enter your email to verify that you’re a real person, not a robot. Thanks for helping us out.
As always, we appreciate you listening. Already up next, Costco gets a lot of love, not just from Jim Gillies, but from many investors, but it also comes at a pretty price. Asit Sharma and Ricky Mulvey test out a new rating system on Costco’s valuation.
Ricky Mulvey: We’ve heard the booms. We’ve heard the dooms around the Costco Food Court, the chicken bake, the double chunk chocolate cookie, Asit. We’re not food reviewers, though, so we’re going to look at the stock. But before we do so, the most important question of this segment. Are you a Costco guy? Do you get it?
Asit Sharma: Ricky, what’s a Costco guy? I guess I get it. I used to shop at Costco when our kids were younger, and the bulk purchases made a lot of sense for us.
Ricky Mulvey: We have sort of the duality of Costco right now because the food court is so inexpensive. Hot dog combo, dollar 50. We walk out of Costco, thinking about the great deals we got, three pounds of coffee for, like, 15 bucks. When we look at the stock though it’s a different story. It’s at one of the most expensive multiples it’s ever been. Trades around 55 times free cash flow, 31 times enterprise value to forward EBITDA so the value of its debt and equity compared to its forward earnings. Both of these are high historically. Then when you compare it to its peers, Kroger, for example, is less than half of that valuation for its free cash flow, and as opposed to the 31X earnings multiple, it’s at a 6X. Why does Costco get such a premium as opposed to these other grocery stores?
Asit Sharma: Ricky listening to you, I was just thinking, it doesn’t matter what batter you dip this thing into, you put it in the oven. It’s double chunk all the way right now. It’s just going to be expensive under any valuation measure when you pull that out of the analysis oven. This is a little mysterious because if you compare Costco to traditional large scale retailers grocers, let’s say, it looks very expensive. It should be. It’s got the membership that has renewal rates above 90%. They’ve gone on this big cost optimization drive, which has really helped them increase margins. They’re the beneficiary of lower input costs going forward as inflation eases. They have shifted some business to high ticket items, big appliances, which carry a better margin and just bigger absolute dollars for the company as they’ve built out more logistics and distribution. They’ve got the balance sheet for global expansion.
Asit Sharma: When you put all this together, you start thinking, yeah, I mean, it should be more expensive than some of these traditional grocers. But then look at a company like BJ’s Wholesale Club, which has, not all of those advantages, but has been undergoing some of the same transitions and has mirrored the stock price over the last five years, BJ’s trades at a fraction of what Costco trades at under the same multiples. I think the reason is the stability of the cash flows is something that the market is looking at as a forever proposition, and they love the way the company allocates its capital between all this expansion and then special dividends that come up every few years and its ability to keep those loyal members and raise prices on them every few years. Still, it just seems historically expensive right now. The market is looking past a lot of potential near term issues to say, we’re going to hold the stock. We’re actually going to act like foolish investors maybe. Still, I would say, if you don’t own Costco, you could nibble. It’s just pricey here.
Ricky Mulvey: What are the near term issues that you’re thinking about?
Asit Sharma: Well, number 1 is the volatility of those same input prices. The market expects that deflation is at least a deceleration of inflation, which the Fed is seeing also is going to benefit companies like Costco which have become more efficient as prices are rising. On the back end, when things get a little cheaper, the inference is that these companies will keep some of that margin to themselves. But look, we have potentially a port strike coming up, so you can’t hang your hat some near term tailwinds. That’s just one of them. I think the other is that we don’t know yet if we’ll really come out of this current economic environment with a soft landing. It always feels like it. We had a shift in interest rate posture by the Fed. Inflation has been easing a bit, but that’s not to say that we won’t fall into a mild recession.
A mild recession might make people think a little bit differently about that 55X ford multiple on earnings per share. But at the end of the day, I think so many institutional buyers and retail buyers are saying, this is a quality company. We don’t mind overpaying a little bit just now. Costco historically, actually, as you pointed out, maybe doesn’t trade this high, but it’s always expensive. There could be some relative biting the bullet here for people who want to be in on this company.
Ricky Mulvey: We’re talking more about round to at the Fool. Let us not do a full re litigation on what this measures. We did a segment on it a while back. But basically, it’s a measure of how efficient a company is a generating income on the hard assets that it has. When you look at Costco, it’s got about 11 billion in cash. It’s got a lot of land in stores. It’s got about 17 billion in inventory, all of those warehouse goods moving through its supply chain on the way to the large boxes at the end of checkout. But when you look at Costco’s round to how efficient it is, it’s at 26%. That’s actually slightly below Kroger and Walmart.
With the premium we just talked about, and Costco investors are willing to pay for the stock, I’m surprised it’s not significantly higher than these other grocers which have more items that they’re selling that don’t have that wonderful membership loyalty program, which completely cuts out on things like shoplifting at their store, what say you? What’s going on here with Costco’s efficiency at generating income?
Asit Sharma: Well, I think that all three that you mentioned are pretty efficient for being primarily grocers. What it might be going on here is a bit of investment. When you invest in your capital base and make it bigger, that lowers your return on invested capital. If you’re a company like these grocers, which doesn’t have a lot of tangible assets on your books, your round to is anyway going to be closer to your return on invested capital. Actually, round to might not be the most efficient metric to use here. But, since not any of these three companies really has, let’s say, a huge goodwill component on their books or a lot of amortization for intangibles, let’s compare these apples to apples.
What is going on here? Is that expansion of the base of warehouses with Costco? Take Kroger, for example, Kroger has 60% of Costco sales, but they have almost tripled the amount of leased assets on their books. What that means is that Costco is buying land building stores, that’s a bigger base, so the bigger the base, the less return penny for penny on your income that you bring home. That’s actually what you want to see if you are an investor in Costco. You want to say, look, take that cash, buy some more land, buy some more buildings, build some more buildings. If you look at their latest supplemental presentation for this previous quarter just end. They have a nice picture of their Nanjing China warehouse. It’s humongous, and they have one that’s in Chungsan North Korea, I hope I pronounced that correctly. Also humongous. As a shareholder, you want that asset base to be big and get bigger because this is a company that’s got to scale up. It’s so big and so mature, Ricky. The only way to keep delivering those returns, aside from the cost optimization and new SKUs, new things that you and I can buy is that global expansion.
Ricky Mulvey: So the thing that’s pressuring it a little bit is that it owns a lot of its real estate that it has a lot of assets. You know Asit, maybe one of these days, we can do retailers with surprising routes. Hey, how about Dillards at 42%? That’s a separate topic.
Asit Sharma: That is surprising.
Ricky Mulvey: As we focus on Costco’s valuation one thing that the Costco guys, beause really what they’ve done has provided gifts for us is social media users. They fundamentally changed my life philosophy. I now sort stocks, my relationships, TV shows, things I watch, either into boom, five booms, that’s boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, or Doom. Boom, five booms or doom. Where are you at on Costco’s valuation as a stock?
Asit Sharma: Boom. Boom, in the sense of that is surprising, but not worth five booms, which is I’ll keep buying it. I don’t care what the price is. You have to be rational a bit.
Ricky Mulvey: Then as we look at Costco’s recent decisions, I’m going to let you be the manager, the CEO. You’re giving feedback, and the only way you’re giving feedback is boom, five booms or doom. There’s three of them. One, they’ve recently raised their annual membership fees by 5-$10. Boom, five booms or doom.
Asit Sharma: How about a one boom?
Ricky Mulvey: It’s a sad boom you offered. You were like, one boom.
Asit Sharma: A one boom it’s not a doom. Costco raises its membership fees only every 6-7 years. I actually expected a little more than these marginal improvements, but it speaks to the power of the model. Actually, this was applauded in a lot of circles because they’re doing right by members and not jacking up the price so much that people want to shop at other places. Throw the next one at me.
Ricky Mulvey: You mentioned the high ticket items earlier. Gold bullion. Now Costco is a dealer in gold bullion. If you look at the jewelry cases the next time you’re at Costco, you’re going to find these one ounce bars of gold that are being sold at cost. Boom, five booms or doom.
Asit Sharma: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom Ricky.
Ricky Mulvey: Full five.
Asit Sharma: Five booms on this idea. I love this idea. The reason I love it so much is that it is so unexpected if you don’t follow Costco. What is Costco doing selling gold bullion? Their membership really took that offer in, and you see what Costco is doing here is perhaps sowing the seeds of something they can do over and over again with surprising items. When you can harness the purchasing power, outside of membership, outside of regular visits to the store, outside of e-commerce, to stuff that people almost virally, your members want to have. That is very powerful to your business model. It may seem silly, but it’s signaling something that is, I think quite valuable to Costco in years to come. I was surprised by that. It’s a five boom to me.
Ricky Mulvey: As we wrap up, let’s take a look at the latest Costco earnings call. We got some news from them. Comp sales up 6%. That’s pretty good for a grocery store. We’re also seeing that pricing power is. Costco boneless chicken tenders. They actually lowered the price by 13% and saw a 21% lift in the volumes sold. Also, Costco’s app getting bigger with 3.5 million app downloads just in the quarter. Anything meaningful here for the business of Costco. We’ve talked about the valuation. Anything meaningful for the business is Costco keeps chugging along.
Asit Sharma: I think all three are relevant. Comp sales, that combination of good volume traffic trends, being able to have the merchandise people want. That’s so important. The more mature company gets, typically, the more those comp sales will trend toward 1-2% or around the cadence of long-term inflation, which forget about recent inflation, has been 2-3% over time. So, for company this big, whenever you can have comp sales above the 5% level, you’re doing really well. The idea that Costco’s buyers and the people who shape its inventory are like those at TDMax, which are the best and brainiest in the business is something I think that’s not as appreciated out in the investing world. Being able to have the inventory on hand, know what people are really going to buy and then drop the price and sell in volume is pretty nice. I think those Apple Out downloads are also meaningful for Costco, although it’s so big, it’s not like a immediate needle mover, but still it’s quite good. That’s a very, very decent number.
Ricky Mulvey: So, I will count you as impressed with the business, but maybe a little concerned about the valuation. I will wrap this up with an om. One half of a boom as we split the difference. Asit Sharma thanks for being here. Appreciate your time and your insight.
Asit Sharma: Thanks a lot, Ricky. Always fun to be here.
Mary Long: As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about, and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. I’m Mary Long. Thanks for listening. We’ll see you tomorrow.
Noticias
Las personas comparten cosas ‘totalmente desquiciadas’ para las que han usado Chatgpt

El trastorno de ansiedad afecta a casi una quinta parte de la población, solo solo en los Estados Unidos. Nami.org informa que más del 19 por ciento de los estadounidenses sufren un trastorno de ansiedad, que debe distinguirse de los nervios regulares de “adrenalina” que alguien podría obtener de hablar en público o estar atrapados en el tráfico.
Para aquellos que saben, a veces puede parecer debilitante. Al igual que con muchos diagnósticos de salud mental, hay una variedad de gravedad y causas. Estamos “nacidos con él” genéticamente, o un evento traumático puede haber ocurrido que lo desencadena. No importa por qué o “qué tan mal” ocurre, puede sentirse especialmente aislante para aquellos que lo soportan, y para aquellos que quieren ayudar pero no saben qué decir o hacer. La terapia puede ayudar, y cuando sea necesario, medicamentos. Pero entenderlo, para todos los involucrados, puede ser complicado.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvjkf8iurje– Clip de YouTube sobre ansiedadwww.youtube.com, Psych Hub
La ansiedad no es como un resfriado que puedes atrapar y tratar con un antibiótico. Es difícil explicar exactamente cómo se siente a alguien que no lo experimenta. La mejor manera que puedo describir es que siempre estás sentado en el incómodo pozo de anticipación.
No solo me refiero a una angustia existencial como “¿Hay una vida futura?” o “¿Moriré solo?” Quiero decir, así: “¿Se cerrará mi auto en una intersección ocupada? ¿Qué pasa si necesito un conducto raíz de nuevo algún día? (Lo haré). ¿Llamará? ¿Qué pasa si mi caminante de perros se olvida de venir mientras estoy tentando? ¿Qué pasa si alguien corre una luz roja? ¿Dije lo correcto en la fiesta? ¿Cuál es mi presión arterial?” ¿Estás agotado todavía? Imagine preguntas grandes y pequeñas como esta corriendo continuamente en un bucle a través de la materia gris de un cerebro, sumergiendo dentro y fuera de la lógica en el lóbulo frontal y luego Haga clic, haga clic, haga clic en A medida que se engancha en un borde irregular y se repite … una y otra y otra vez.
Un registro gira en un bucle.Giphy gif por shingo2
Aunque bien intencionado, hay soluciones que las personas a menudo ofrecen que, al menos para mí, hacen que la tensión peor. Muchos terapeutas de salud mental han intervenido en las frases mejor para evitar y han ofrecido alternativas más útiles.
1) En laureltherapy.net, comienzan con el viejo castaño: “Solo relájate”.
Cuando cada sinapsis en tu cerebro está en alerta máxima, alguien que te dice que “simplemente derribarla solo” solo lo empeora. Es literalmente lo contrario de lo que está haciendo tu química cerebral (y no por elección). Es similar a “simplemente calmarse”, que por la misma razón puede sentirse despectivo e inútil.
Ofrecen en su lugar: “Estoy aquí para ti”. Reconoce su incomodidad y da un espacio suave para caer.
2) Otra oración para evitar: “Eres demasiado sensible”.
Esto sería como decirle a alguien con una discapacidad física que es su culpa. En cambio, ofrecen: “Tus sentimientos tienen sentido”.
A veces solo quieres sentirte visto/escuchado, especialmente por los más cercanos a ti. Lo último que uno necesita es sentirse mal por sentirse mal.
3) En EverydayHealth.com, Michelle Pugle (según lo revisado por Seth Gillihan, PhD) cita a Helen Egger, MD, y da este consejo:
No digas “Lo estás pensando demasiado”.
Ella da algunas opciones para probar en su lugar, pero mi favorito es: “Estás a salvo”.
Puede sonar cursi, pero cuando realmente estoy girando, es bueno saber que alguien está a mi lado y no juzga mi mente por pensar de manera diferente a la suya.
4) Pugle también aconseja decir “Preocuparse no cambiará nada”.
No puedo decirte con qué frecuencia se me dice esto y, mientras, tal vez, es cierto, nuevamente implica que no hay nada que uno pueda hacer en un momento de pánico. Ella escribe:
“Tratar de calmar la ansiedad de alguien diciéndoles sus pensamientos no son productivos, que valen la pena, o que son una pérdida de tiempo también invalida sus sentimientos e incluso pueden dejarlos sintiéndose más angustiados que antes”, explica Egger.
En su lugar, intente: “¿Quieres hacer algo para tomarte de la cabeza de las cosas?”
Esto da la impresión de que alguien está realmente dispuesto a ayudar y participar, no solo crítica.
5) “Todo está en tu cabeza”.
La difunta Carrie Fisher una vez escribió sobre cuánto odiaba cuando la gente le decía eso, como si eso fuera de alguna manera reconfortante. Parafraseando, su respuesta fue esencialmente: “Lo sé. ¡Es mi cabeza sacarlo de allí!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6YOGZ8PCE– YouTubewww.youtube.com
Laurel Therapy sugiere que intente: “La ansiedad puede ser realmente dura”. Personalmente, preferiría: “¿Cómo puedo ayudar?”
Si bien a veces podría sentirse frustrante, la clave, cuando se trata de ansiedad, es ser consciente de que no está avergonzando o condescendiendo.
Aquí hay algunos conceptos más que me ayudan:
GRATITUD
Vi una película llamada Casi tiempo Hace unos años, escrito por Richard Curtis, que tiene una propensión a ser cursi. Pero esta cita es muy hermosa: “Solo trato de vivir todos los días como si hubiera vuelto deliberadamente a este día, para disfrutarlo, como si fuera el último día final de mi vida extraordinaria y ordinaria”. Simplemente me encanta la idea de fingir que hemos viajado el tiempo a cada momento de nuestras vidas a propósito. Y esto ayuda especialmente a los ansiosos porque si es cierto que siempre estamos herramientando en un futuro impredecible en lugar de estar sentados donde el tiempo quiere que estemos, tiene sentido que estuviéramos allí y hemos vuelto a un momento para mostrarle respeto. Ver todos los días y cada pensamiento como un regalo en lugar de un miedo. Ahora eso es algo.
RESPIRAR
Estoy seguro de que has oído hablar de los beneficios de la meditación. Son verdaderos. He visto la práctica de tener en cuenta tu respiración y sentarse aún hacer grandes diferencias en las personas cercanas a mí. No he podido hacer que la meditación sea parte de mi rutina diaria, pero eso no significa que no pueda esforzarme. (Intente, intente de nuevo.) Parto en el yoga y encuentro que ayuda a frenar mi mente considerablemente.
Saber que TÚ No son tus pensamientos
Nuestras amígdales (la parte del cerebro, que entre otros roles, provoca nuestra respuesta a las amenazas, reales o percibidas) puede jugar con trucos desagradables para nosotros. No somos la suma total de cada pensamiento que hemos tenido. Por el contrario, creo que somos lo que nosotros hacerno lo que pensamos. Nuestra ansiedad (o depresión) no tiene que definirnos, especialmente cuando sabemos que estamos respondiendo a muchas amenazas que ni siquiera existen. Podemos ser de servicio a los demás. Voluntario cuando sea posible o simplemente sea amable con los que lo rodean todos los días. Eso es lo que nos hace quienes somos. Personalmente, esa idea me calma.
Noticias
‘Empire of AI’ author on OpenAI’s cult of AGI and why Sam Altman tried to discredit her book

When OpenAI unleashed ChatGPT on the world in November 2022, it lit the fuse that ignited the generative AI era.
But Karen Hao, author of the new book, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI, had already been covering OpenAI for years. The book comes out on May 20, and it reveals surprising new details about the company’s culture of secrecy and religious devotion to the promise of AGI, or artificial general intelligence.
Hao profiled the company for MIT Technology Review two years before ChatGPT launched, putting it on the map as a world-changing company. Now, she’s giving readers an inside look at pivotal moments in the history of artificial intelligence, including the moment when OpenAI’s board forced out CEO and cofounder Sam Altman. (He was later reinstated because of employee backlash.)
Empire of AI dispels any doubt that OpenAI’s belief in ushering in AGI to benefit all of humanity had messianic undertones. One of the many stories from Hao’s book involves Ilya Sutskever, cofounder and former chief scientist, burning an effigy on a team retreat. The wooden effigy “represented a good, aligned AGI that OpenAI had built, only to discover it was actually lying and deceitful. OpenAI’s duty, he said, was to destroy it.” Sutskever would later do this again at another company retreat, Hao wrote.
And in interviews with OpenAI employees about the potential of AGI, Hao details their “wide-eyed wonder” when “talking about how it would bring utopia. Someone said, ‘We’re going to reach AGI and then, game over, like, the world will be perfect.’ And then speaking to other people, when they were telling me that AGI could destroy humanity, their voices were quivering with that fear.”
Hao’s seven years of covering AI have culminated in Empire of AI, which details OpenAI’s rise to dominance, casting it as a modern-day empire. That Hao’s book reminded me of The Anarchy, the account of the OG corporate empire, The East India Company, is no coincidence. Hao reread William Dalrymple’s book while writing her own “to remind [herself] of the parallels of a company taking over the world.”
This is likely not a characterization that OpenAI wants. In fact, Altman went out of his way to discredit Hao’s book on X. “There are some books coming out about OpenAI and me. We only participated in two… No book will get everything right, especially when some people are so intent on twisting things, but these two authors are trying to.”
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
The two authors Altman named are Keach Hagey and Ashlee Vance, and they also have forthcoming books. The unnamed author was Hao, of course. She said OpenAI promised to cooperate with her for months, but never did.
We get into that drama in the interview below, plus OpenAI’s religious fervor for AGI, the harms AI has already inflicted on the Global South, and what else Hao would have included if she’d kept writing the book.
Order ‘Empire of AI’ by Karen Hao
Mashable: I was particularly fascinated by this religious belief or faith that AGI could be achieved, but also without being able to define it. You wrote about Ilya [Sutskever] being seen as a kind of prophet and burning an effigy. Twice. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on that.
Karen Hao: I’m really glad that you used religious belief to describe that, because I don’t remember if I explicitly used that word, but I was really trying to convey it through the description. This was a thing that honestly was most surprising to me while reporting the book. There is so much religious rhetoric around AGI, you know, ‘AI will kill us’ versus ‘AI will bring us to utopia.’ I thought it was just rhetoric.
When I first started reporting the book, the general narrative among more skeptical people is, ‘Oh, of course they’re going to say that AI can kill people, or AI will bring utopia, because it creates this image of AI being incredibly powerful, and that’s going to help them sell more products.’
What I was surprised by was, no, it’s not just that. Maybe there are some people who do just say this as rhetoric, but there are also people who genuinely believe these things.
I spoke to people with wide-eyed wonder when they were talking about how it would bring utopia. Someone said, ‘We’re going to reach AGI and then, game over, like, the world will be perfect.’ And then speaking to other people, when they were telling me that AGI could destroy humanity, their voices were quivering with that fear.
The amount of power to influence the world is so profound that I think they start to need religion; some kind of belief system or value system to hold on to.

Ilya Sutskever (pictured here at a 2023 event in Tel Aviv with Sam Altman) burned a wooden effigy at a company retreat that represented AGI gone rogue.
Credit: Photo by Jack Guez / AFP / Getty Images
I was really shocked by that level of all-consuming belief that a lot of people within this space start to have, and I think part of it is because they’re doing something that is kind of historically unprecedented. The amount of power to influence the world is so profound that I think they start to need religion; some kind of belief system or value system to hold on to. Because you feel so inadequate otherwise, having all that responsibility.
Also, the community is so insular. Because I talked with some people over several years, I noticed that the language they use and how they think about what they’re doing fundamentally evolves. As you get more and more sucked into this world. You start using more and more religious language, and more and more of this perspective really gets to you.
It’s like Dune, where [Lady Jessica] tells a myth that she builds around Paul Atreides that she purposely kind of constructs to make it such that he becomes powerful, and they have this idea that this is the way to control people. To create a religion, you create a mythology around it. Not only do the people who hear it for the first time genuinely believe this because they don’t realize that it was a construct, but also Paul Atreides himself starts to believe it more and more, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Honestly, when I was talking with people for the book, I was like, this is Dune.
Something I’ve been wondering lately is, what am I not seeing? What are they seeing that is making them believe this so fervently?
I think what’s happening here is twofold. First, we need to remember that when designing these systems, AI companies prioritize their own problems. They do this both implicitly—in the way that Silicon Valley has always done, creating apps for first-world problems like laundry and food delivery, because that’s what they know—and explicitly.
My book talks about how Altman has long pushed OpenAI to focus on AI models that can excel at code generation because he thinks they will ultimately help the company entrench its competitive advantage. As a result, these models are designed to best serve the people who develop them. And the farther away your life is from theirs in Silicon Valley, the more this technology begins to break down for you.
The second thing that’s happening is more meta. Code generation has become the main use case in which AI models are more consistently delivering workers productivity gains, both for the reasons aforementioned above and because code is particularly well suited to the strengths of AI models. Code is computable.
To people who don’t code or don’t exist in the Silicon Valley worldview, we view the leaps in code-generation capabilities as leaps in just one use case. But in the AI world, there is a deeply entrenched worldview that everything about the world is ultimately, with enough data, computable. So, to people who exist in that mind frame, the leaps in code generation represent something far more than just code generation. It’s emblematic of AI one day being able to master everything.
Mashable Light Speed
How did your decision to frame OpenAI as a modern-day empire come to fruition?
I originally did not plan to focus the book that much on OpenAI. I actually wanted to focus the book on this idea that the AI industry has become a modern-day empire. And this was based on work that I did at MIT Technology Review in 2020 and 2021 about AI colonialism.
To really understand the vastness and the scale of what’s happening, you really have to start thinking about it more as an empire-like phenomenon.
It was exploring this idea that was starting to crop up a lot in academia and among research circles that there are lots of different patterns that we are starting to see where this pursuit of extremely resource-intensive AI technologies is leading to a consolidation of resources, wealth, power, and knowledge. And in a way, it’s no longer sufficient to kind of call them companies anymore.
To really understand the vastness and the scale of what’s happening, you really have to start thinking about it more as an empire-like phenomenon. At the time, I did a series of stories that was looking at communities around the world, especially in the Global South, that are experiencing this kind of AI revolution, but as vulnerable populations that were not in any way seeing the benefits of the technology, but were being exploited by either the creation of the technology or the deployment of it.
And that’s when ChatGPT came out… and all of a sudden we were recycling old narratives of ‘AI is going to transform everything, and it’s amazing for everyone.’ So I thought, now is the time to reintroduce everything but in this new context.
Then I realized that OpenAI was actually the vehicle to tell this story, because they were the company that completely accelerated the absolute colossal amount of resources that is going into this technology and the empire-esque nature of it all.

Sam Altman, under President Donald Trump’s administration, announced OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate Project to build AI infrastructure in the U.S.
Credit: Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images
Your decision to weave the stories of content moderators and the environmental impact of data centers from the perspective of the Global South was so compelling. What was behind your decision to include that?
As I started covering AI more and more, I developed this really strong feeling that the story of AI and society cannot be understood exclusively from its centers of power. Yes, we need reporting to understand Silicon Valley and its worldview. But also, if we only ever stay within that worldview, you won’t be able to fully understand the sheer extent of how AI then affects real people in the real world.
The world is not represented by Silicon Valley, and the global majority or the Global South are the true test cases for whether or not a technology is actually benefiting humanity, because the technology is usually not built with them in mind.
All technology revolutions leave some people behind. But the problem is that the people who are left behind are always the same, and the people who gain are always the same. So are we really getting progress from technology if we’re just exacerbating inequality more and more, globally?
That’s why I wanted to write the stories that were in places far and away from Silicon Valley. Most of the world lives that way without access to basic resources, without a guarantee of being able to put healthy food on the table for their kids or where the next paycheck is going to come from. And so unless we explore how AI actually affects these people, we’re never really going to understand what it’s going to mean ultimately for all of us.
Another really interesting part of your book was the closing off of the research community [as AI labs stopped openly sharing details about their models] and how that’s something that we totally take for granted now. Why was that so important to include in the book?
I was really lucky in that I started covering AI before all the companies started closing themselves off and obfuscating technical details. And so for me, it was an incredibly dramatic shift to see companies being incredibly open with publishing their data, publishing their model weights, publishing the analyses of how their models are performing, independent auditors getting access to models, things like that, and now this state where all we get is just PR. So that was part of it, just saying, it wasn’t actually like this before.
And it is yet another example of why empires are the way to think about this, because empires control knowledge production. How they perpetuate their existence is by continuously massaging the facts and massaging science to allow them to continue to persist.
But also, if it wasn’t like this before, I hope that it’ll give people a greater sense of hope themselves, that this can change. This is not some inevitable state of affairs. And we really need more transparency in how these technologies are developed.
The levels of opacity are so glaring, and it’s shocking that we’ve kind of been lulled into this sense of normalcy. I hope that it’s a bit of a wake-up call that we shouldn’t accept this.
They’re the most consequential technologies being developed today, and we literally can’t say basic things about them. We can’t say how much energy they use, how much carbon they produce, we can’t even say where the data centers are that are being built half the time. We can’t say how much discrimination is in these tools, and we’re giving them to children in classrooms and to doctors’ offices to start supporting medical decisions.
The levels of opacity are so glaring, and it’s shocking that we’ve kind of been lulled into this sense of normalcy. I hope that it’s a bit of a wake-up call that we shouldn’t accept this.
When you posted about the book, I knew that it was going to be a big thing. Then Sam Altman posted about the book. Have you seen a rise in interest, and does Sam Altman know about the Streisand Effect?

Sam Altman (pictured at a recent Senate hearing) alluded to ‘Empire of AI’ in an X post as a book OpenAI declined to participate in. Hao says she tried for six months to get their cooperation.
Credit: Nathan Howard / Bloomberg / Getty Images
Obviously, he’s a very strategic and tactical person and generally very aware of how things that he does will land with people, especially with the media. So, honestly, my first reaction was just… why? Is there some kind of 4D chess game? I just don’t get it. But, yeah, we did see a rise in interest from a lot of journalists being like, ‘Oh, now I really need to see what’s in the book.’
When I started the book, OpenAI said that they would cooperate with the book, and we had discussions for almost six months of them participating in the book. And then at the six-month mark, they suddenly reversed their position. I was really disheartened by that, because I felt like now I have a much harder task of trying to tell this story and trying to accurately reflect their perspective without really having them participate in the book.
But I think it ended up making the book a lot stronger, because I ended up being even more aggressive in my reporting… So in hindsight, I think it was a blessing.
Why do you think OpenAI reversed its decision to talk to you, but talked to other authors writing books about OpenAI? Do you have any theories?
When I approached them about the book, I was very upfront and said, ‘You know all the things that I’ve written. I’m going to come with a critical perspective, but obviously I want to be fair, and I want to give you every opportunity to challenge some of the criticisms that I might bring from my reporting.’ Initially, they were open to that, which is a credit to them.
I think what happened was it just kept dragging out, and I started wondering how sincere they actually were or whether they were offering this as a carrot to try and shape how many people I reached out to myself, because I was hesitant to reach out to people within the company while I was still negotiating for interviews with the communications team. But at some point, I realized I’m running out of time and I just need to go through with my reporting plan, so I just started reaching out to people within the company.
My theory is that it frustrated them that I emailed people directly, and because there were other book opportunities, they decided that they didn’t need to participate in every book. They could just participate in what they wanted to. So it became kind of a done decision that they would no longer participate in mine, and go with the others.
The book ends at the beginning of January 2025, and so much has happened since then. If you were going to keep writing this book, what would you focus on?
For sure the Stargate Project and DeepSeek. The Stargate Project is just such a perfect extension of what I talk about in the book, which is that the level of capital and resources, and now the level of power infrastructure and water infrastructure that is being influenced by these companies is hard to even grasp.
Once again, we are getting to a new age of empire. They’re literally land-grabbing and resource-grabbing. The Stargate Project was originally announced as a $500 billion spend over four years. The Apollo Program was $380 billion over 13 years, if you account for it in 2025. If it actually goes through, it would be the largest amount of capital spent in history to build infrastructure for technology that ultimately the track record for is still middling.
Once again, we are getting to a new age of empire. They’re literally land-grabbing and resource-grabbing.
We haven’t actually seen that much economic progress; it’s not broad-based at all. In fact, you could argue that the current uncertainty that everyone feels about the economy and jobs disappearing is actually the real scorecard of what the quest for AGI has brought us.
And then DeepSeek… the fundamental lesson of DeepSeek was that none of this is actually necessary. I know that there’s a lot of controversy around whether they distilled OpenAI’s models or actually spent the amount that they said they did. But OpenAI could have distilled their own models. Why didn’t they distill their models? None of this was necessary. They do not need to build $500 billion of infrastructure. They could have spent more time innovating on more efficient ways of reaching the same level of performance in their technologies. But they didn’t, because they haven’t had the pressure to do so with the sheer amount of resources that they can get access to through Altman’s once-in-a-generation fundraising capabilities.
What do you hope readers will take away from this book?
The story of the empire of AI is so deeply connected to what’s happening right now with the Trump Administration and DOGE and the complete collapse of democratic norms in the U.S., because this is what happens when you allow certain individuals to consolidate so much wealth, so much power, that they can basically just manipulate democracy.
AI is just the latest vehicle by which that is happening, and democracy is not inevitable. If we want to preserve our democracy, we need to fight like hell to protect it and recognize that the way Silicon Valley is currently talking about weaponizing AI as a sort of a narrative for the future is actually cloaking this massive acceleration of the erosion of democracy and reversal of democracy.
Empire of AI will be published by Penguin Random House on Tuesday, May 20. You can purchase the book through Penguin, Amazon, Bookshop.org, and other retailers.
Editor’s Note: This conversation has been edited for clarity and grammar.
Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.
Topics
Artificial Intelligence
OpenAI
Noticias
El Proyecto Stargate de Openai tiene como objetivo construir infraestructura de IA en países asociados de todo el mundo

Operai ha anunciado una nueva iniciativa llamada “OpenAi para países” como parte de su proyecto Stargate, con el objetivo de ayudar a las naciones a desarrollar infraestructura de IA basada en principios democráticos. Esta expansión sigue al plan de inversión inicial de $ 500 millones de la compañía para la infraestructura de IA en los Estados Unidos.
“Introducción a OpenAi para países, una nueva iniciativa para apoyar a países de todo el mundo que desean construir sobre los rieles demócratas de IA”, declaró Openai en su anuncio. La compañía informa que su proyecto Stargate, reveló por primera vez en enero con el presidente Trump y los socios Oracle y Softbank, ha comenzado la construcción de su primer campus de supercomputación en Abilene, Texas.
Según OpenAI, la iniciativa responde al interés internacional en un desarrollo similar de infraestructura. “Hemos escuchado de muchos países pidiendo ayuda para construir una infraestructura de IA similar: que quieren sus propios Stargates y proyectos similares”, explicó la compañía, señalando que dicha infraestructura será “la columna vertebral del futuro crecimiento económico y el desarrollo nacional”.
La compañía enfatizó su visión de la IA democrática como tecnología que incorpora principios que protegen las libertades individuales y evitan la concentración de control del gobierno. Operai cree que este enfoque “contribuye a una amplia distribución de los beneficios de la IA, desalienta la concentración de poder y ayuda a avanzar en nuestra misión”.
El proyecto Stargate opera a través de un consorcio de principales compañías de tecnología que se desempeñan como inversores y socios técnicos. SoftBank, Openai, Oracle y MGX proporcionan la financiación inicial de capital, con las responsabilidades financieras de manejo de SoftBank, mientras que OpenAI administra las operaciones.
En el lado técnico, cinco compañías tecnológicas importantes forman la base de la implementación del proyecto. “Arm, Microsoft, Nvidia, Oracle y OpenAI son los socios de tecnología iniciales clave”, según OpenAI. El desarrollo de infraestructura aprovecha las relaciones establecidas entre estas compañías, particularmente basándose en la colaboración de larga data de OpenAI con Nvidia que se remonta a 2016 y su asociación más reciente con Oracle.
La compañía describe un marco integral de asociación para colaborar con naciones extranjeras.
“Openai está ofreciendo un nuevo tipo de asociación para la era de la inteligencia. A través de colaboraciones de infraestructura formal y en coordinación con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos”, explica el anuncio, destacando la alineación de la compañía con los intereses de política exterior estadounidense en el desarrollo tecnológico.
El modelo de asociación incluye múltiples componentes que abordan la infraestructura, el acceso y el desarrollo económico. Operai planea “asociarse con países para ayudar a construir capacidad de centro de datos en el país” para respaldar la soberanía de los datos al tiempo que permite la personalización de la IA para las necesidades locales.
Los ciudadanos de los países participantes recibirían servicios de “CHATGPT personalizados” adaptados a idiomas y culturas locales, destinados a mejorar la prestación de atención médica, educación y servicios públicos. Operai describe esto como “ai de, por y para las necesidades de cada país en particular”.
La compañía también enfatiza las inversiones de seguridad y el desarrollo económico a través de un enfoque de financiación de inicio donde “los países asociados también invertirían en la expansión del proyecto global de Stargate, y por lo tanto en el liderazgo continuo de IA liderado por Estados Unidos”, reforzando la conexión de la iniciativa con el liderazgo tecnológico estadounidense.
Las asociaciones internacionales de OpenAI incorporan amplios protocolos de seguridad diseñados para proteger los modelos de IA y la propiedad intelectual. La compañía ha desarrollado un enfoque de seguridad para abordar las posibles vulnerabilidades.
“Salvaguardar nuestros modelos es un compromiso continuo y un pilar central de nuestra postura de seguridad”, Estados Openai, que describe su marco de seguridad como “riguroso” y “evolucionando continuamente”. Este marco abarca la seguridad de la información, la gobernanza y la protección de la infraestructura física.
La arquitectura de seguridad se adapta a las capacidades del modelo de coincidencia, con OpenAi señalando que “nuestras medidas de seguridad no son estáticas; escaman con las capacidades de nuestros modelos e incorporan protecciones de vanguardia”. Estas protecciones incluyen seguridad respaldada por hardware, arquitectura de mudanza cero y salvaguardas criptográficas.
El acceso al personal representa otra dimensión de seguridad crítica. “Operai mantendrá una supervisión explícita y continua sobre todo el personal con acceso a nuestros sistemas de información, propiedad intelectual y modelos”, enfatiza la compañía, y agrega que “ninguna persona o entidad obtendrá dicho acceso sin nuestra aprobación directa”.
Antes de implementar modelos internacionalmente, OpenAI realiza evaluaciones de riesgos a través de su marco de preparación. “Cada implementación de nuevos modelos se someterá a una evaluación de riesgos antes de la implementación”, reconociendo que algunos modelos avanzados pueden presentar riesgos incompatibles con ciertos entornos.
El CEO de Operai, Sam Altman, expresó entusiasmo por el progreso en el sitio de Texas, tuiteando:
Genial ver el progreso en el primer Stargate en Abilene con nuestros socios en Oracle Today. Será la instalación de entrenamiento de IA más grande del mundo. La escala, la velocidad y la habilidad de las personas que construyen esto es increíble.
Sin embargo, el desarrollo masivo de infraestructura ha planteado preocupaciones ambientales. Greg Osuri, fundador de Akash Network, cuestionó el enfoque de sostenibilidad del proyecto:
Este centro de datos está generando 360 MW quemando gas natural, causando una fuerte contaminación y emitiendo hasta 1 millón de toneladas métricas de carbono cada año. Entiendo que las opciones son limitadas, pero me gustaría comprender sus planes futuros para cambiar a fuentes más limpias o sostenibles.
Zach DeWitt, socio de Wing VC, comentó las implicaciones más amplias de este movimiento:
Operai parece estar construyendo y vendiendo productos en cada capa de la pila de IA: chips, centros de datos, API y la capa de aplicación. No está claro qué capa (s) se comercializarán y no se comercializarán y OpenAi está cubriendo sus apuestas de arriba a abajo por la pila de IA. Muy inteligente.
La compañía ha especificado limitaciones geográficas para su estrategia de expansión internacional, manteniendo restricciones sobre las cuales las naciones pueden acceder a su tecnología a través de su documentación de “países y territorios respaldados”.
-
Startups12 meses ago
Remove.bg: La Revolución en la Edición de Imágenes que Debes Conocer
-
Tutoriales1 año ago
Cómo Comenzar a Utilizar ChatGPT: Una Guía Completa para Principiantes
-
Startups10 meses ago
Startups de IA en EE.UU. que han recaudado más de $100M en 2024
-
Recursos1 año ago
Cómo Empezar con Popai.pro: Tu Espacio Personal de IA – Guía Completa, Instalación, Versiones y Precios
-
Startups1 año ago
Deepgram: Revolucionando el Reconocimiento de Voz con IA
-
Recursos12 meses ago
Perplexity aplicado al Marketing Digital y Estrategias SEO
-
Recursos1 año ago
Suno.com: La Revolución en la Creación Musical con Inteligencia Artificial
-
Noticias10 meses ago
Dos periodistas octogenarios deman a ChatGPT por robar su trabajo