←back to thread

507 points martinald | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gitremote ◴[] No.45052117[source]
These numbers are off.

> $20/month ChatGPT Pro user: Heavy daily usage but token-limited

ChatGPT Pro is $200/month and Sam Altman already admitted that OpenAI is losing money from Pro subscriptions in January 2025:

"insane thing: we are currently losing money on openai pro subscriptions!

people use it much more than we expected."

- Sam Altman, January 6, 2025

https://xcancel.com/sama/status/1876104315296968813

replies(9): >>45052594 #>>45052618 #>>45053078 #>>45053278 #>>45053311 #>>45053620 #>>45053859 #>>45055188 #>>45055732 #
Topfi ◴[] No.45053078[source]
That doesn't seem compatible with what he stated more recently:

> We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat...

His possible incentives and the fact OpenAI isn't a public company simply make it hard for us to gauge which of these statements is closer to the truth.

replies(4): >>45053121 #>>45053373 #>>45053429 #>>45053432 #
metalliqaz ◴[] No.45053432[source]
> If we didn't pay for training

it is comical that something like this was even uttered in the conversation. It really shows how disconnected the tech sector is from the real world.

Imagine Intel CEO saying "If we didn't have to pay for fabs, we'd be a very profitable company." Even in passing. He'd be ridiculed.

replies(2): >>45053674 #>>45054032 #
1. Closi ◴[] No.45054032[source]
I'm not entirely sure the analogy is fair - Amazon for example was 'ridiculed' for being hugely unprofitable for the first decade, but had underlying profitability if you removed capex.

As a counterpoint, if OpenAI were actually profitable at this early stage that could be a bad financial decision - it might mean that they aren't investing enough in what is an incredibly fierce and capital-intensive market.