Character.ai Files for Bankruptcy

(theverge.com)

119 points | by yanis_t 3 hours ago

25 comments

  • softwaredoug 37 minutes ago
    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. Owners got life changing wealth, employees got a down payment for a home.

    It’s sad that this doesn’t seem to be the norm. Screwing employees on acquisition seems like a severe breach of social contract.

    • NDizzle 1 minute ago
      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)
    • jonny_eh 16 minutes ago
      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.
  • schleck8 2 hours ago
    > 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.
    • glimshe 2 hours ago
      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.
      • Varelion 2 hours ago
        WOAH, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING IS DEAD! BUY MORE TOKENS!
        • inSumErgoCogito 1 hour ago
          Now i hear that in gandalfs moria voice: "Full of a Toke! Next time throw yourself after it into the wishing well!"
    • dumberquestions 1 hour ago
      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).
    • lelanthran 2 hours ago
      That's a long time ago. They should have been able to make a go of it in these hyped times.
    • nova22033 1 hour ago
      Same thing they did with windsurf
  • gizzlon 2 hours ago
    I wonder what will happen to all the very personal and sensitive data they (probably) have on users?
    • Medea 2 hours ago
      Probably auctioned off, like what happened to Spirit Airlines: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/google-aims-to-...
      • renegade-otter 1 hour ago
        It's unbelievable to me that this is legal. You put your trust into a corporate entity with your data. The entity goes away, so does the guarantee? Oh, OK.

        I learned that the hard way with 23&Me.

        • satvikpendem 1 hour ago
          > I learned that the hard way with 23&Me.

          That's why I've never done a DNA test, it's not worth your literal biological data being sold off to god knows where to discriminate against you. I thought everyone realized this but didn't realize it was a niche opinion.

          • pfdietz 51 minutes ago
            Has that discrimination scenario ever happened?
          • c-linkage 1 hour ago
            It would have been nice if my siblings had the same opinion.
        • naravara 30 minutes ago
          My original mortgage lender has a very functioning web portal to set up autopay and check my account.

          They sold my mortgage to a big bank whose web portal and app are pure garbage. Constantly crashing, the autopay frequently just doesn’t autopay, and getting a statement history requires delving through a bunch of random menus.

          It’s really obnoxious that I just get no say unless I refinance.

          • delichon 13 minutes ago
            Imagine buying a bond that you are not allowed to sell, and just have to wait for maturity. You'd pay less than for a normal bond, right? Same goes for a mortgage lender. They would risk less and you'd be paying a lot more for such a loan, if you can find one.
      • gazook89 47 minutes ago
        > Google’s purchase doesn’t include personal data and privileged materials like Spirit’s 97.5 million passenger profiles or an estimated 50.2 million records related to the Free Spirit loyalty program data, according to court records.
      • GJim 36 minutes ago
        It's the FUD spread by the AdTech industry (including here on HN by people who's salaries are dependent on invading our privacy) that is holding back sensible data protection laws in the USA.
    • cmiles8 1 hour ago
      It’s a company asset to auction off to the highest bidder now
  • hirako2000 40 minutes ago
    So many job openings for a company going under.

    https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/character/

    • zamadatix 1 minute ago
      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.
  • thor-rodrigues 2 hours ago
    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.

    • scrollop 1 hour ago
      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 :/

      • nater5000 47 minutes ago
        >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.

      • Sharlin 1 hour ago
        Replace the people with LLMs and we're well on our way to immanentizing the "Vile Offspring" of Stross's Accelerando.
    • post-it 1 hour ago
      It seems like a lot of people enjoyed using the product. Isn't that value?
      • miltonlost 43 minutes ago
        Not when the product creates psychosis in people and makes them lonelier and sadder than before and encourages them to starve and cut themselves. Where is the value in this? https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/characterai-chatbot...
        • debugnik 7 minutes ago
          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.
    • schleck8 2 hours ago
      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)
      • thor-rodrigues 2 hours ago
        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.

        • embedding-shape 1 hour ago
          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?
      • PxldLtd 2 hours ago
        I disagree that it's reductive. If each user costs more in API tokens then your company isn't valuable. That's what everyone's been screaming from the rooftops about there being a bubble. We certainly use tons of AI at the company I work for, if we were paying full API prices then I would bet we'd be barely using it.
        • phillipcarter 56 minutes ago
          There's always enterprise wheeling and dealing to keep something discounted, but enterprises are absolutely paying API prices for tokens. For AI coding a least, the issue is more about attributing tokens to a real backlog (no leeching tokens for side projects) and keeping things from running away, both of which all the major AI coding platforms offer solutions for.
      • skeeter2020 33 minutes ago
        webvan and pets.com have entered the chat.
      • irl_zebra 1 hour ago
        As we saw after the hero Zelenskyy took down Yandex data centers, user count seems to be vaporware in many cases.
        • gaiagraphia 1 hour ago
          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.

      • cicko 29 minutes ago
        A drug dealer at the corner also has lots of active monthly users.
    • jansport123 1 hour ago
      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.
    • Ekaros 1 hour ago
      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.
    • roncesvalles 1 hour ago
      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.

      • skeeter2020 30 minutes ago
        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.
    • SpicyLemonZest 1 hour ago
      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.
    • turing_complete 2 hours ago
      welcome to the world of VC startups
    • PxldLtd 2 hours ago
      Get with the program, numbers go up = ai valuable. Don't look any closer, details are the AI's problem now.
  • hypfer 57 minutes ago
    5 days ago:

    Character.AI chatbots encouraged users to cut and starve themselves, Kentucky alleges

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/characterai-chatbot...

    • donbox 42 minutes ago
      Agreed, IMHO this might be the real reason.
  • writtenone 27 minutes ago
  • forgetme2020 37 minutes ago
    The CEO and left a week ago. he must have been among the first to see this coming.
  • karahime 1 hour ago
    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.
    • Schlagbohrer 1 hour ago
      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
      • user43928 9 minutes ago
        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.

      • mingus88 42 minutes ago
        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

  • agnishom 35 minutes ago
    Will this kick off a wave off bankruptcy of companies with morally bankrupt ideas?
  • hisfraudulency 55 minutes ago
    It was always odd to me that talent like Noam Shazeer was working at a company with such a gimmicky premise to begin with.
    • donbox 43 minutes ago
      Well, he founded it!
    • miltonlost 41 minutes ago
      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.
  • ChrisArchitect 11 minutes ago
  • xg15 1 hour ago
    And nothing of value was lost...

    (well, except investment money I guess)

  • seydor 33 minutes ago
    I had no idea there is a Morality Court
  • paaloeye 1 hour ago
    Boom and bust cycle in startups is so short lately!
  • mschuster91 2 hours ago
    And so, it begins. The first domino has fallen.

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

    • dumberquestions 1 hour ago
      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.
    • Krasnol 2 hours ago
      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.

      • ActionHank 1 hour ago
        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.

      • FromTheFirstIn 2 hours ago
        A monopoly on not making money
  • baggachipz 1 hour ago
    Is there this implosion's version of fuckedcompany.com?
  • rvz 58 minutes ago
    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.

  • Soliddune16 2 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • jdw64 2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • jp0001 1 hour ago
    Good. Let this be a warning to shit companies with shit products and shit business models.
    • ramesh31 1 hour ago
      >"Let this be a warning to shit companies with shit products and shit business models."

      ...that you can be a shit company with a shit product and a shit business model and still make a shit ton of money and get hired by Google?

      • jp0001 1 hour ago
        It’s a good idea. The three things I said still stand.
  • 0gs 2 hours ago
    calling this a domino is pretty funny. "the first tiddlywink has spontaneously disintegrated"
    • lelanthran 2 hours ago
      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.

      • m4rtink 2 hours ago
        So Character.ai is Jay Cooke & Company ? ;-)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

        • 0gs 1 hour ago
          wow tontines are fascinating! fwiw, i just meant that c.ai was a domino before it got hollowed out by an acquipoach
      • mingus88 39 minutes ago
        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?

    • freecodeio 40 minutes ago
      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.
    • aardv44rk 1 hour ago
      [dead]