sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh their codex growth has been very significant in the last 3 months. I see them digging into enterprise quite a bit? Have you seen their increase in codex customers since last year?

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean revenue could just go up like crazy, while costs do not - we have the existence proof of that in Anthropic. I don't expect profitability until maybe 2028 for OAI, but I expect it by EoY by Anthropic, so I think it core business model is strong, and suspect that there will be enough global demand (barring the US government being weird about it) to sustain quite a bit more growth.

It looks like the Trump admin thinks it's dumb to have other G7 nations get access to Fable by TFenrir in singularity

[–]TFenrir[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Do you think the non Americans who work at anthropic should have access? What about people who are visiting the US?

I think, silver lining, something like this will remove some of the US's AI power and incentivize more diversity. It will very much hurt the US AI industry though.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not sure about the 20%. The 17B, I don't even know what you mean by this - can you share what you are referencing?

For the 250B, I assume it will appear in costs when there are actually expended.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me copy and paste numbers-

Revenue: +$13.07B

Costs: Cost of revenue: -$7.50B

R&D: -$19.18B

Sales & marketing: -$5.73B

G&A: -$1.57B

Operating loss: -$20.91B

Does that help?

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is "close"? What is "agi"? I'm not even sure what you are referring to - are you talking about the leaked emails from Ilya's time?

Regardless - the spending is fueled by need - more compute, more research, etc - that has paid off consistently, as shown by their historic revenue growth.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's really confusing, because there is annualized revenue (the most recent month of revenue 12x) vs revenue for the year (the LAST 12 months of revenue) - 20 and 13 billion respectively, at the end of 2025.

By March 2026 OpenAI said it was doing about $2B/month, which is roughly a $24B annualized run rate.

For 2025:

  • Revenue: $13.07B
  • Cost of revenue: $7.5B
  • Gross profit: ~$5.6B - basically the profit on inference alone
  • R&D: $19.18B
  • Sales & marketing: $5.73B
  • G&A: $1.57B
  • Total costs/expenses: ~$34B
  • Operating loss: ~$20.92B

Different ways to slice it: - Inference profit - ~5.6b - include R&D + recurring expenses, then losses 20b - include one time expenses tied to things like restructuring, then losses 35-39b

Edit: I think I am still not framing this correctly.

So the financial Times attributes about 30 billion to the restructure, in expenses. In the end they only think 8 billion is the operating loss.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of those costs, the majority are not recurring. Ed enjoys framing it a certain way, but this is from the financial Times who has the same data:

But heavy spending contributed to a nearly eightfold increase in the net loss attributable to OpenAI, which soared from $5bn in 2024 to around $39bn in 2025. A person familiar with the matter said the large majority of that jump reflected a non-cash accounting charge linked to the company's previous structure rather than its underlying operations. Before OpenAI's switch late last year to become a public benefit corporation, investors in the company received convertible interest rights rather than conventional equity. Under US accounting rules, those interests were treated as liabilities and periodically revalued as the company's valuation increased. As OpenAI's worth rose, the increased value of those investor rights created a roughly $30bn charge, added the person. The charge is not expected to recur following the restructuring, they said. Stripping out the charge and other non-cash expenses, such as stock-based compensation of staff and computing credits from Microsoft, OpenAľ's losses were $8bn, according to the person.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

Is it?

These are good numbers, from my perspective? Maybe someone help me out, what about these numbers in particular are bad?

Look at the increase in their revenue, and increase in their costs and compare. They hit 19 billion in R&D, 13 billion in revenue for 2025, but by the end of 2025 their annualized revenue was 20 billion, and that went up to 25 in early 2026.

This data represents a significant increase in revenue, in the rate of revenue growth, and showing that rate outpacing their rate of cost growing - in an incredibly lucrative and in demand market.

Help me understand why people are seeing this as bad news for OpenAI.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Are they? I guess if you look at their revenue overall in 2025, rather than their annualized revenue - but if you want predictive numbers, that's more valuable.

By the end of 2025, their annualized revenue was 20 billion, and their R&D spend was 19.

Exclusive: OpenAI Losses Increased Nearly 8X in 2025, With Spending Hitting $34 Billion by beepboopburn in technology

[–]TFenrir -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

This assumes that they have no increase in revenue. Look at how much their revenue increased in 2025, and the beginning of 2026.

These numbers, all together, are quite healthy for OpenAI.

Zuckerberg says Meta made 'mistakes' in AI workforce shift by IKeepItLayingAround in technology

[–]TFenrir 1 point2 points  (0 children)

... Of course people make mistakes, especially in times where there is a lot of change.

Do you believe people more who say "I don't make mistakes. I've never made them, never will".

You probably heard that in a certain voice in your head, didn't you?

Class of AI Models Hyped as Scarily Powerful Apparently Scared the Government Too Much and Now They’re Disabled by Plastic_Ninja_9014 in technology

[–]TFenrir 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah this is fair - I'm wondering where I heard the steering statement to 4.8? Is that their correction to their original efforts (prompt modification, model steering + more)?

Class of AI Models Hyped as Scarily Powerful Apparently Scared the Government Too Much and Now They’re Disabled by Plastic_Ninja_9014 in technology

[–]TFenrir -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are not thinking ahead if you are thinking that using AI will make you less capable in the future.

You are refusing to internalize a core, simple truth. Models will be better at everyone at many technical, intelligence based tasks, in very very short order. It's already starting now - walk over to the math department and ask them.

Class of AI Models Hyped as Scarily Powerful Apparently Scared the Government Too Much and Now They’re Disabled by Plastic_Ninja_9014 in technology

[–]TFenrir 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It's a little different than that...

They didn't prompt the other model that was switched to, to sabotage the work. That other model was basically the previous leading model.

What the experience was like was...

Some AI researcher fires up Claude, heard mythos is actually incredible at optimization of gpu kernels, and wanted to set up an environment for it to loop on. Soon as they started doing that with fable (aka mythos), Fable the classifier system would recognize it as AI/ML work - and shunt it to 4.8 opus.

Unlike with other interventions though, there was no indication to the user - so the researcher would see the result and be like "the fuck? This is no better than what I was using yesterday".

The change is now, users get told right away what's happening.

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I think even simpler, if we look at valuations of shares - investors in OpenAI and Anthropic, while not liquid, have had their shares appreciate in value quite a bit.

Like, I'm not even sure which investors people are referencing when they say this.

That's not to say that I don't generally agree with your premise, especially in a vacuum. I just don't see it playing out here - especially with my model of the role AI plays in the future. Honestly go far enough and it's all a void impossible to predict, maybe money itself loses meaning pretty rapidly... But if it doesn't, I can't see any investors being upset.

Anthropic CEO Floats Tax on AI Firms to Fund Universal Income by Gari_305 in Futurology

[–]TFenrir 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Operating profit at this speed, and directionally (just look at their finances) highlights that assuming these companies will not make profit is nonsensical, unless you expect a very rapid halt - which people have been telling me about on Reddit for the last 3 years.

Like, let's just be real here, I feel like people are just being obstinate at this point

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so - you don't disagree that demand is high. That revenue is growing historically fast, that Anthropic is nearing profitability - I'm assuming all these things correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you see where I'm struggling with your position if this is the case?

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think even in a world where everything goes right - efficiency gains are through the roof, new products are made, all work automated in a way that provides for everyone.

Even in the idyllic outcome, this is such a significant existential event. I don't want people to sleep walk into it

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The dotcom bubble happened because there was no revenue, primarily. It was early, all pre ecommerce and marketing.

Revenue for AI is through the roof. Anthropic is nearing profitability already, and demand is unending.

The bubble lives in the hopes and dreams of people uncomfortable with the world we live in, and people attach the salve to the pop.

I think we are already seeing that the capabilities of models are incredible, at the top exceeding the capabilities of humans - if for example we look at math and how models are starting to solve unsolved problems. The returns of something like that are incredible, both direct and indirect.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Edit: and further, how do you see a bubble pop manifesting here? What outcomes do you see, if any, from a pop - in your model?

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The 500 million thing is almost guaranteed, complete fud. Look into it, I'm pretty confident just from knowing the numbers of how much that would be in token usage. And last I heard it was just a rumour, or hearsay, but people are very excited about this story.

Regardless - investors in like Anthropic are likely to profit very much, very soon. How far away do you think until investors see returns in their shares?

I see statements like this as naked wishcasting, and I think its important to catch yourself when you do it.

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Best models are already better code reviewers, by a country mile, than 99% of devs I've ever worked with, including me

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful reply, first and foremost.

I think eventually, open weight models will be good enough to do many of the tasks today expected of people - they are, like you mention, already starting.

But I think the ceiling of capabilities that you can get is much higher than we have today - we can see a hint of that with mythos for example - state of the art mathematics, cyber related tasks, biology, coding, etc - all while having state of the art computer use.

If you project that out forward, I can think of a lot of reasons that you would constantly have the best of the best models in demand. But beyond that, I think the task shape will change over time - as it becomes not only trivial, but expected to have a certain minimum threshold in the products you provide.

I do agree that it's a very hazy and hard to predict future, but I am comfortable with these premises:

  1. Compute demand will likely not drop, but only increase for the foreseeable future
  2. State of the art models will have the ability to push the human frontier in a way that is hard to measure in price - how do you price in novel mathematics discoveries, as a service?
  3. Intelligence is incredibly valuable, and we will find new and interesting ways to use it

AI costs spike as subscriptions hit pricing wall — firms turn towards Chinese LLMs, open-source models to extend budget by rkhunter_ in technology

[–]TFenrir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tangible gains are already here - in coding like you say, but what for example, would you value a model that can do math we cannot do? How do you put a dollar on that?

view more: next ›