For those of you on the AB5 beat, important to know that the #1 driver behind this legislation is organized labor. "However, the reality is that AB5 was drafted by a union organizer, and this bill was designed as a way to grow union membership." latimes.com/socal/daily-pi…
Today no drivers are unionized, but the SEIU and others want them to be. Vox has a deeper dive here, outlining decades of history behind this push. vox.com/2019/9/11/2085… Important to know that its not actually coming from a large % of the actual drivers themselves.
Here's even more proof. When musicians (who are unionized) wanted out of AB5, they were quickly let out. ocregister.com/2020/04/17/mus… Love the title, "Music industry, lawmakers, unions agree on revamp to AB5." At least it shows you clearly who writes legislation in Sacramento.
Of course, musicians are just one of 52 other industries that are carved-out/exempt from AB5. It's a hard-fast clear-cut, rule, except in the 52 other cases where its not.
The point @sundeep is making about be combinatorial effect of having many (now 7?) Chinese open AI models is very powerful, and I mis-appreciated by many. Each model can improve each other model. And new models are much easier to launch. 🧵
@mattwridley’s book The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010) persuasively argues that human progress and innovation are largely driven by the exchange and combination of ideas—much like genetic recombination in biology. He calls this phenomenon “ideas having sex.”
If normal sharing or technological innovation is “ideas having sex” this plethora of simultaneous open AI models (with published weights and papers about technique) is an “idea orgy.” The collective innovation should easily soar pass anything one company can do alone.
As a 3rd-party, curious observer, I have several naive, unanswered questions about the Stargate project. Obviously understand that they have no obligation to disclose. Here is list with responses wide open. I would love to be able to aggregate the best answers at some point.
1. Corporate Structure
The OpenA press release says that Stargate is "a new company." Is Stargate established as a standard C-corp, LLC, a joint venture, or something else entirely?
2. CEO Leadership
Will Stargate have an independent CEO? Who will lead Stargate on a daily basis, and how is that person chosen? Will they be as operationally intense as the XAI team that launched Memphis?
You can frequently read articles referencing VC "dry powder" and inferring that these large dollar amounts are "burning a hole" in someone's pocket & will imminently find their way to the market. I totally understand the assumption, but things don't really work this way. [cont]
First and foremost, undrawn VC dollars are not on the IRR clock. There is no urgency to draw them down. The money isn't actually at the VC firm, they are still sitting in the coffers at the LPs. No VC firm I have ever been exposed to feels "pressure" to "get dollars to work."
On the back of a market reset, & w/ portfolio valuations being slashed, GPs are mostly sharing bad news w/ LPs. No GP wants to look aggressive/carefree. Imagine being a teenager with two speeding tickets & a fender-bender insisting on taking the new family car out Saturday night.
Some (below) are arguing US capitalism would be better off if SVB had completely failed (also wiping out depositors). History suggests that out gov't treated big banks (2008) & big airlines (2020) FAR BETTER than SVB - in both cases fully protecting EQUITY shareholders. (cont)
In 2008, during the GFC, our gov't bailed out most of the major money center banks. Equity shareholders & bondholders kept whole. GS received help AFTER they received a preferred investment from Warren Buffet. Here is the real kicker (cont). investopedia.com/insights/too-b…
The GFC was the result of a specific flawed financial product that was an "offering" of these same banks. So far, the identified SVB failure was a bad risk management process. In the GFC case, the "bailed-out" players directly benefited from the flawed product.
As people come to terms with the weight of our new environment, they are slowly beginning to realize how radically things have changed. One area in particular that has changed - the required level of "corporate performance" needed to simply survive (let alone thrive). 🧵
2/ Building startups WAS a historically difficult endeavor (see chart). The past 5 years things have been "much, much easier." Cash was easy to come by (round frequency unprecedented), & no one was held to any profit goals, yet many companies still received high valuations.
3/ Cash is now hard to come by; investors are expecting solid unit economics & earlier profitability. Everything is immediately 5-10X harder. As such, survival is now depedent on hard-core, disciplined, top decile business execution, which no one learned in the past 5 years.