←back to thread

507 points martinald | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
simonw ◴[] No.45054022[source]
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat... quotes Sam Altman saying:

> Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.

replies(6): >>45054061 #>>45054069 #>>45054101 #>>45054102 #>>45054593 #>>45054858 #
aeternum ◴[] No.45054102[source]
This can be technically true without being actually true.

IE OpenAI invests in Cursor/Windsurf/Startups that give away credits to users and make heavy use of inference API. Money flows back to OpenAI then OpenAI sends it back to those companies via credits/investment $.

It's even more circular in this case because nvidia is also funding companies that generate significant inference.

It'll be quite difficult to figure out whether it's actually profitable until the new investment dollars start to dry up.

replies(3): >>45054665 #>>45054677 #>>45055299 #
citizenpaul ◴[] No.45055299[source]
There a journalist ed zittron

https://www.wheresyoured.at/

That is an openai skeptic. His research if correct says not only is openai unprofitable but it likely never will be. Can't be ,its various finance ratios make early uber, amazon ect look downright fiscally frugal.

He is not a tech person for what that means to you.

replies(2): >>45056072 #>>45056292 #
1. oblio ◴[] No.45056072[source]
Amazon was very frugal. If you look at Amazon losses for the first 10 years, they were all basically under 5% of revenue and many years were break even or slightly net positive.

Uber burnt through a lot of money and even now I'm not sure their lifetime revenue is positive (it's possible that since their foundation they've lost more money than they've made).

replies(1): >>45056111 #
2. citizenpaul ◴[] No.45056111[source]
Exactly Zittrons point.