I think we are, like you suggest, just talking past each other. Depreciation is supposed to conceptually be tied to the useful life of an asset; a 1000 year depreciation schedule might be reasonable for say a Roman bridge.
When we talk accrual basis profits we are trying as best we can to match the revenues and expenses even if they occur at different points in the useful life of the asset.
Almost zero kibitzers or journalists take this accrual mindset into account when they use the word profit - but that’s what profit is, excess revenue applied against a certain period’s fairly allocated expense.
What they generally mean is cashflow; oAI has negative cashflow and is likely to for quite a while. No argument there. I think it’s worth disambiguating these for people though because career and investment decisions in our industry depend on understanding the business mechanics as well as the financial ones. Right now financially simplistic hot takes seem to get a lot of upvotes. I worry this is harming younger engineers and founders.
When we talk accrual basis profits we are trying as best we can to match the revenues and expenses even if they occur at different points in the useful life of the asset.
Almost zero kibitzers or journalists take this accrual mindset into account when they use the word profit - but that’s what profit is, excess revenue applied against a certain period’s fairly allocated expense.
What they generally mean is cashflow; oAI has negative cashflow and is likely to for quite a while. No argument there. I think it’s worth disambiguating these for people though because career and investment decisions in our industry depend on understanding the business mechanics as well as the financial ones. Right now financially simplistic hot takes seem to get a lot of upvotes. I worry this is harming younger engineers and founders.