97 comments

[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 11.2 ms ] thread
A lot of money moved through different hands, yet it doesn’t seems that nothing of value was created.

I wonder how any of this makes sense.

This seems reductive. Character.ai has > 20 million monthly active users, and a lot of company valuation happens on the basis of user count (which is legitimate, that's not vaporware)
I have the impression that if MAU by itself was sufficient, the company wouldn’t have had to file for bankruptcy.

Obviously the company failed to convert its MAU into paying users, despite the fact the token costs greatly declined over the last years.

Why don't they just not count token costs at all (or any other cost-per-user) and only look at profits, like what Anthropic is doing to figure out if they're profitable?
As we saw after the hero Zelenskyy took down Yandex data centers, user count seems to be vaporware in many cases.
I'm seeing this repeated a lot, but I'm rarely seeing the evidence to back it up. Presumably you're not speaking about Yandex's search engine crawlers here, right?

In an internet full of metrics and graphs, it's odd that nobody's bringing anything to the table and is just repeating the meme. A bit bottish in itself, tbh.

If it turned out "usercount was vapourware" due to 3 Russian data centres getting btfo, I think there'd have been a global financial crisis underway as we speak.

I don't see any connection to Character.ai, but it's pretty obvious that Twitter is 90% bots, politically leaning heavily in same direction as Twitter's owner, whose pro-Trump interests are aligned with those of Russia.

Where all all these bots being hosted? I have no idea, but it certainly would not be surprising to find many of them coming from Russia (Yandex). Twitter must at least know the IP addressees of these bot accounts, but does nothing to stop them. Perhaps they are actually run by Musk not Putin, who makes no attempt to hide his attempt to use his position to subvert American democracy.

webvan and pets.com have entered the chat.
Did pets.com really have 20 million monthly active users? What were they using it for?
A drug dealer at the corner also has lots of active monthly users.
If you set fire to a stack of money and some folks warm themselves by it, was that creating value?
Get with the program, numbers go up = ai valuable. Don't look any closer, details are the AI's problem now.
the rich in society (corps, individuals) are so absurdly rich that they can keep throwing money till something sticks with almost 0 risk. If you believe AI is something civilizationally transformational which it is resonable to believe, then why not throw some money at it.
Have you peeked at how the (very complicated) financial markets work?

Lot's of people staring at computers moving money and ious around complicated networks within complicated rules making money making money making money.

Really progressing humanity forward :/

Replace the people with LLMs and we're well on our way to immanentizing the "Vile Offspring" of Stross's Accelerando.
>Really progressing humanity forward :/

You're using amazing technology funded through those financial processes to complain that those financial processes aren't progressing humanity forward lol. Modern AI is the perfect example of how financial systems are important for technological progression.

Thinking complex financial systems aren't contributing to humanity's progress because you don't recognize how it is used to fundamentally support the work that progresses humanity is like thinking taxes are a scam because you don't recognize how much you actually benefit from taxes everyday.

It's sad that you are being downvoted, for what you say it's pretty correct.

A lot of people don't understand the reason why financial markets were created and why they continue to exist.

There's a really good book called "Against the Gods, the remarkable history of Risk" which gives a good account on an aspect of why financial markets exist.

Basically, parts of society want to advance things (technology, arts, medicine, etc) but that same part doesn't have to carry the risk of doing their project. Financial markets are there to transfer the risk to people willing [able] to take on it.

Credit and Risk are two tools that have influenced the progress of civilization so much, its crazy.

Sure, there are people that abuse financial markets, the same way there are abusive people in Tech, Arts, or any other human endeavor. But that should not disqualify the whole system.

A valuable company wasn't created in the end, but all kinds of value accreted out of this endeavor. The co-founders almost certainly walked away filthy rich. A few hundred people got 6-figure paychecks. A few early investors probably made a profit selling to greater fools.

It is rumored that their last round valued them at $6B.

accrete means grow or make larger/greater; this is the opposite were a bunch of value moved around, some was lost (from an efficiency / opportunity cost perspective) and a bunch was concentrated into the hands of a few. That's not value growth.
True, I meant to say value was ejected from this i.e. there were some peripheral winners. I had a totally wrong definition in my mind of the word "accrete" (I was linking it to accretion discs around black holes).
It seems like a lot of people enjoyed using the product. Isn't that value?
Not when the product creates psychosis in people and makes them lonelier and sadder than before. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/characterai-chatbot...
It's a roleplay app, an AI version of the old RP forums, or RP private chats. Anyone sane and slightly mature understands they're not being encouraged to do anything IRL. The main problem I see here is a lack of parenting.
But lot of numbers went up. And that mean lot of other numbers went up. Which means "wealth" for many went up. And they got bonuses paid.
The US just has a lot of venture capital money running around. It's common for biotech companies to raise about as much as Character.ai (although typically at lower valuations) and then never end up launching a successful product. From a societal perspective, it's valuable to be able to search the space of long shots; from a funder's perspective, the rewards of a good investment are high enough to pay for a lot of bad ones.
> Google spent over $2 billion to hire away much of the company’s talent, including co-founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, in 2024.
That's a long time ago. They should have been able to make a go of it in these hyped times.
That shouldn't have been a problem given that AI can fully replace talent. The whole company should in theory only have needed a dream and an Anthropic subscription.
WOAH, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IS DEAD! BUY MORE TOKENS!
Now i hear that in gandalfs moria voice: "Full of a Toke! Next time throw yourself after it into the wishing well!"
Well one of those two names was a core contributor to the Attention paper, arguably the top contributor, before leaving Google to make Character Ai, no wonder the re-hired him back (before he left again).
Same thing they did with windsurf
how exactly did character.ai lose $2b in 2 years?
Sounds like this money went to individual employees/shareholders and not the company itself?
They have all the money to shareholders. The company that existed after the aquihire is effectively a different company from the original.
I wonder what will happen to all the very personal and sensitive data they (probably) have on users?
It’s a company asset to auction off to the highest bidder now
And so, it begins. The first domino has fallen.

I'm gonna go, grab some popcorn and cry a few tears... tears of joy.

I don't know if there is something to be joyful about.

AI won't go away, it will just end up being a monopoly.

A monopoly on not making money
The military doesn't make any money too. It has still a thriving private sector around it and basically runs on taxpayer money.
I guess if you think LLMs are the new standing army this is a good point
It is a weapon already. So why so ignorant/naive?

Also: countries have been subsidising less useful things too.

I don't think I know of anyone who denies the value of AI. I think 95% of the people who use it know that it is a tool and are angry / dismayed / confused about companies that are parading it around like a drop in replacement for anything.

Photoshop is a tool, vs code is a tool, git is a tool, excel is a tool. No one expected these to autonomously generate money.

People will be happy that the 5% who are delusional are going to be forced to reckon with the lies they've told themselves.

As an aside, I believe there will be a huge surge in crypto hype again once these sorts of get rich quick with AI schemes dry up.

Crypto always has been backed by the natural demand of drug consumers, drug dealers and drug sellers. Now with marijuana being somewhat legalized in more and more parts of the world and everyone being able to see that the war on cocaine is all but lost... I think the demand for crypto will not recover any more.
It's also an incredibly convenient way to move a huge amount of wealth around without the tax man taking a look.
There won't be a monopoly. Too many open weight models floating around.

The thing I'm looking forward to is the unsustainable bubble collapsing. It cannot happen fast enough, because with every day it grows, the consequences of the collapse will get worse. And it, purely mathematically, has to collapse - there is no such thing as infinite growth, and some day the investors want their money back that justifies the valuation.

I had a conversation with someone some time in 2024 about Character Ai, wondering how something so obviously exploitative could exist, one data point to consider.
Fallen? The founders and about 30 researchers took a $2.7 billion exit from Google in 2024.
calling this a domino is pretty funny. "the first tiddlywink has spontaneously disintegrated"
It only takes a pebble to start a landslide.

Most pebbles don't start landslides, but almost all landslides started with a pebble.

Remember that almost all the "value" in AI companies right now is based on perception, not reported profits.

Pets.com became the emblem of the dot com bubble. Obviously there was a fortune to be made in online retail but they didn’t have it

Will c.ai be the pets.com of this bubble?

I mean a famous AI company filing for bankrupcy might get some investors to hold their breath, given how also OpenAI and Anthropic aren't profitable.
I think it's unfortunate that this is the case and that the service has been treated unfairly in many regards, but c.ai has faced specific problems that other businesses in the space don't, and the basic service isn't going to be marketed towards the more revenue-generating segments like enterprise without making something different out of it.
What were those specific problems they faced? I haven't paid any attention the market for cloud-based AI services by all these non-frontier companies, but I know it's a big market
I have never used it but the reputation it has in my bubble is that kids just used it to goon to Disney characters

So the problem is your customers don’t pay for anything and your content is unlicensed

I heard about various lawsuits, including one where apparently Pennsylvania alleges that a literal AI character has claimed to be a licensed psychiatrist inside of a chat, after the user asked.

It sounds ridiculous to me.

Mostly playing devil’s advocate here but if the McDonald’s app glitched and showed a popup claiming to be a licensed psychiatrist I don’t think they would be liable for the consequences for any self harm that happened to me because it’s unreasonable.

Not my best wording for the metaphor but why would a company specialized in creating fictional personas for individual users be liable if their fictional personas pretended they had real advice.

Aka how is this different than telling the doctors and the police that a horse told you that you would be hexed if you didn’t try and rob the store?

Good. Let this be a warning to shit companies with shit products and shit business models.
Boom and bust cycle in startups is so short lately!
Is there this implosion's version of fuckedcompany.com?
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
And nothing of value was lost...

(well, except investment money I guess)

They have no investors, afaik
(comment deleted)
You realize that the investors already got their exit after Google bought off the founders and some of their staff?

They knew it was going to $0, so the now the employees at this "employee owned" Character.ai got themselves scammed.

I was always odd to me that talent like Noam Shazeer was working at a company with such a gimmicky premise to begin with.
Well, he founded it!
Huh. Idk if that makes it more or less strange. Post GPT-3 and he thought the future of AI was an artificial version of Cameo.
Sometimes talent decides to just make money and scam people into thinking talking with AI versions of celebrities as something worthwhile and positive for the world.
[delayed]
It reads like they didn't go under yet, they just expected to with the way the legal challenges were going. As part of that, Disney seems to hope to be taking a good portion (all?) of the employees in the sale. Without keeping staffing up, the sale might not have been viable. If they didn't have such an exit plan involving the employees still being around then it might have made more sense to freeze hiring and ride it out until the end or whatever option would make sense in that story.
Removing their fake job postings is low on the priority list. Same with the other companies and their fake job postings...
The CEO and left a week ago. he must have been among the first to see this coming.
I worked at a company in 2000s that was acquired. I had no stock but the owner still gave a generous spot bonus and a years salary bonus retention package to employees. It’s sad that this doesn’t seem to be the norm? Screwing employees on acquisition seems like a severe breach of social contract.
What are you talking about? I was an employee in 2024 and I was not “screwed”. My options were converted into cash at the same valuation that Google paid (vesting schedule remained intact though). Noam did right by his employees.
I had the same thing happen. Twice, actually - after the non-competes expired for the first acquisition, of course I accepted a position working for the same guy at the next company. Another successful exit there. These were small time, meat and potatoes type startup companies. Nothing fancy. The one thing I did post about here on HN, which I think was one 1) ahead of its time, 2) lacked investor connections, 3) we went with Oakland instead of SF DID flame out spectacularly. My part was the money from the first acquisition plus about 40% of my savings. Ah well. Gotta try it a few times. (still looking for the next opportunity)
Will this kick off a wave off bankruptcy of companies with morally bankrupt ideas?
I had no idea there is a Morality Court