I don't find it convincing that the tech isn't the moat. If the tech wasn't a moat, you'd see Microsoft spinning up its own competitor, you'd see Amazon, Apple, Meta, Oracle all have SoTA frontier models as well.

We don't see that, we see three established players in the frontier model space, and a lot of folks fighting in the second tier category.

It looks like Ilya Sutskever wasn't as indispensable as he thought. SSI, Inc. is nowhere near the scale of OpenAI.

What is interesting about the AI/LLM hype-cycle/bubble is how it can support so many entrants and players, like Cursor AI, Open AI, Cline, Gemini, Claude, Grok, CoPilot etc., and each carving a niche and a high valuation. THis is is in contrast to social networking, in which Facebook was the overwhelming dominant player, followed a distant second by LinkedIn. (Instagram was bought out.) Or Yahoo vs. Google. But now it's like a dozen companies, and each worth a lot and not as interchangeable, as seen with search engines or social networking. Facebook was the clear and dominant winner and superior platform, and there was little reason to use an alternative, except maybe LinkedIn for job searches.

No that's not allowed

> Can I have insider knowledge about a company that the company in question doesn't itself know yet?

Yes you can

It's useful to think of this not as "insider knowledge" but the actual term: material non-public information.

Is the information you have material (i.e. will move the stock price)? Is it non-public? Then there you go: it would be ill-advised to trade on it.

You would get in trouble for trading on information about the company you own. Buying a bunch of stock in companies you think your company might acquire is insider trading against the company that you own.

>Can I have insider knowledge about a company that the company in question doesn't itself know yet?

Yes. However you can get around it by simply back filing a disclosure (whoops im sorry)after the fact since everyone in congress does it and it has literally never been legally pursued and never will be. I'm not being sarcastic something like 80% of congress disclosures are 2 years late or more. I don't remember the exact numbers but its insane. Just another spin on too big to fail, they can't arrest us because they would have to arrest all of congress and collapse the country.

Trading on non-public information is prohibited. Doesn't matter if you are or are not actually an "insider" in the company whose stock you are trading.

Corporations are persons though. Can you point to a crime they are committing?

Even a couple of years ago it was mindboggling to look at their corporate structure:

A non-profit parent entity with a wholly owned for-profit subsidiary (actually, the non-profit wholly owns and controls a third "manager" entity which in turn is the controlling but not majority shareholder of the for-profit subsidiary) where the profit of the for-profit entity is "capped" and oh by the way, that for-profit subsidiary has a 49% shareholder who happens to be Microsoft (but despite a 49% stake gets 75% of their profit..........until their initial investment is recouped). Employees get Profit Participation Units (PPUs) which are NOT equity but which entitle employees to a percentage of profits, again up to the "cap". Then of course, when OpenAI achieves AGI, whatever the hell that is is, then everything from that point forward reverts back to the non-profit entity.

I know it's changed since then, but it has always been a sort of financial Rube Goldberg contraption setup.

The Dutch East India Company wasn't too big to fail. There is nothing too big to fail and if anything too big is guaranteed to fail.

>"What OpenAI and Nvidia are doing is insultingly in everyone's face. It's just a so obvious that it's become a bit of a punchline."

From your post, it seems that you resent OpenAI for something, but I don't really understand what. Could you please clarify?

I personally believe that LLM "AI" is a 'bubble', but I am not sure it will end soon enough to be worth shorting players' stocks. If you believe that this 'craze' will end suddenly and soon, would it not be better to just invest accordingly, and profit from their 'absurd' behaviour?