I know it's very unpopular on HN to give the benefit of the doubt to either OpenAI or to the US Government. I'll do it anyway, torpedoes be damned.
First, the $1T number seems to be completely pulled out of thin air. There were recent speculations that OpenAI is working on an IPO at the level of $1T, but obviously this has nothing to do with US loan guarantees of $1T. The talk about US loan guarantees originated with the WSJ interview of the OpenAI CFO, Sarah Friar. She was very clear that she can't give any details, because nothing is concrete yet. She did not mention any numbers, at all. The $1T is pure speculation, based on nothing.
Second, Sarah Friar mentioned that the US Government is very receptive to the entire sector, and OpenAI is always consulted. But OpenAI is not lobbying the government for loan guarantees for themselves only. If there are any such loan guarantees (which is very likely), they'll be for AI investments in the US in general, so, for example, Anthropic and Google will also benefit (and probably Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Oracle, Amazon, Meta, etc).
Third, Sarah Friar used the word "backstop", instead of loan guarantees. This might sound like a synonym, but I don't think it is. She emphasized that the financing will be organized by the private industry; the government backstop is there to facilitate that. How could such a backstop look, so it is most efficient for both the taxpayers and for the investors (most of which are also taxpayers)? It could be some first loss tranches in some pools of loans, for example the first 10%. This way, the industry can raise $10BN, while the government is on the hook for only $1BN. Even more likely, the government will provide second loss backstop (the technical term is a "mezzanine tranch"). For example, they'll absorb the losses between 5% and 15% in a loan portfolio. The first loss will be absorbed by some speculative investors, who will be compensated by a very generous yield.
I also expect that new loans will only be raised if old loans perform well. Overall, I don't expect the US government to be on the hook for $1T at any given time, and I would be surprised if they'll be on the hook for much more than $1 BN at any given time.
Indeed a world in which you can't tell truth from lies and proof from ai generated videos suits this administration perfectly. Masked men with no identification kidnap people off the streets and you can't tell if it's real or fake. No wonder the government loves openai. Just look at how happy they are to use it on truth social.
> If there are any such loan guarantees (which is very likely), they'll be for AI investments in the US in general, so, for example, Anthropic and Google will also benefit (and probably Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Oracle, Amazon, Meta, etc).
so, if we say there is AI bubble, now whole sector of ultrarich will rob taxpayers, not just single controversial company.
First, the $1T number seems to be completely pulled out of thin air. There were recent speculations that OpenAI is working on an IPO at the level of $1T, but obviously this has nothing to do with US loan guarantees of $1T. The talk about US loan guarantees originated with the WSJ interview of the OpenAI CFO, Sarah Friar. She was very clear that she can't give any details, because nothing is concrete yet. She did not mention any numbers, at all. The $1T is pure speculation, based on nothing.
Second, Sarah Friar mentioned that the US Government is very receptive to the entire sector, and OpenAI is always consulted. But OpenAI is not lobbying the government for loan guarantees for themselves only. If there are any such loan guarantees (which is very likely), they'll be for AI investments in the US in general, so, for example, Anthropic and Google will also benefit (and probably Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Oracle, Amazon, Meta, etc).
Third, Sarah Friar used the word "backstop", instead of loan guarantees. This might sound like a synonym, but I don't think it is. She emphasized that the financing will be organized by the private industry; the government backstop is there to facilitate that. How could such a backstop look, so it is most efficient for both the taxpayers and for the investors (most of which are also taxpayers)? It could be some first loss tranches in some pools of loans, for example the first 10%. This way, the industry can raise $10BN, while the government is on the hook for only $1BN. Even more likely, the government will provide second loss backstop (the technical term is a "mezzanine tranch"). For example, they'll absorb the losses between 5% and 15% in a loan portfolio. The first loss will be absorbed by some speculative investors, who will be compensated by a very generous yield.
I also expect that new loans will only be raised if old loans perform well. Overall, I don't expect the US government to be on the hook for $1T at any given time, and I would be surprised if they'll be on the hook for much more than $1 BN at any given time.