Jason Lemkin

And this actually ties, funnily enough, to the ads come and everything else.

The key question that I don't know is, how will the investors look at it?

If you're writing a check right now, do you think, if I'm paying $600 billion pre or $800 billion pre, do I need to say it could be a trillion?

Because it could be 20% dilution.

I don't know.

But this isn't existential to Harry's point.

In the end, you can fold and give the man what he wants.

You can't settle if he doesn't want to settle.

I mean, to be fair, you don't have to.

I mean, because as I think about it as an investor, what would you say?

You'd say here, let's just say this is around at 700 million pre.

There is a probability of an additional 15% dilution, but it's not 100%.

Maybe it's only 10%.

So really risk-adjusted, you add a 1.5%.

So you don't assume.

You're assigning a probability to a capped, large, and uncertain event, which is there is some chance that I take 15% or 20% extra dilution, but it's not 100%.

So it doesn't drag the financing down to zero.

It merely means there's an asterisk risk on it.

And to be fair, anyone who's financed open AI today, if you look, the funny thing about open AI is it has, even though this looks very risky, open AI from a structure perspective

It's less risky now than it's ever been.