<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: jotras</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jotras</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 18:26:17 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=jotras" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by jotras in "OpenAI's cash burn will be one of the big bubble questions of 2026"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Something nobody's talking about: OpenAI's losses might actually be attractive to certain investors from a tax perspective.
Microsoft and other corporate investors can potentially use their share of OpenAI's operating losses to offset their own taxable income through partnership tax treatment. It's basically a tax-advantaged way to fund R&D - you get the loss deductions now while retaining upside optionality later. This is why the "cash burn = value destruction" framing misses the mark. For the right investor base, $10B in annual losses at OpenAI could be worth $2-3B in tax shields (depending on their bracket and how the structure works). That completely changes the return calculation.
The real question isn't "can OpenAI justify its valuation" but rather "what's the blended tax rate of its investor base?" If you're sitting on a pile of profitable cloud revenue like Microsoft, suddenly OpenAI's burn rate starts looking like a pretty efficient way to minimize your tax bill while getting a free option on the AI leader. This also explains why big tech is so eager to invest at nosebleed valuations. They're not just betting on AI upside, they're getting immediate tax benefits that de-risk the whole thing.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 06:37:36 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46441967</link><dc:creator>jotras</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46441967</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46441967</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by jotras in "Rob Pike goes nuclear over GenAI"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is where the debate gets interesting, but I think both sides are cherrypicking data a bit. The energy consumption trend depends a lot on what baseline you're measuring from and which metrics you prioritize.<p>Yes, data center efficiency improved dramatically between 2010-2020, but the absolute scale kept growing. So you're technically both right: efficiency gains kept/unit costs down while total infrastructure expanded. The 2022+ inflection is real though, and its not just about AI training. Inference at scale is the quiet energy hog nobody talks about enough.<p>What bugs me about this whole thread is that it's turning into "AI bad" vs "AI defenders," when the real question should be: which AI use cases actually justify this resource spike? Running an LLM to summarize a Slack thread probably doesn't. Using it to accelerate drug discovery or materials science probably does. But we're deploying this stuff everywhere without any kind of cost/benefit filter, and that's the part that feels reckless.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 20:29:12 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46395889</link><dc:creator>jotras</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46395889</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46395889</guid></item></channel></rss>