Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No they wouldn't have. Low cost isn't no cost, R$D is expensive I'm not talking about R&D. > there are a class of tokenmaxxing users well outside the median (e.g Agentic Coding). It wasn't a thing before last year and OpenAI wasn't making profit before that either. > https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/infrastructure/measur ... > https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-much-energy-does-chatg ... None of these supp…
>I'm not talking about R&D. You said OpenAI and Anthropic would be profitable if the median query was as cheap as I say. I'm telling they wouldn't be because inference isn't the only cost these companies shoulder. R&D/Training is a very big part of costs. That you didn't mention it is irrelevant. R&D is the lion's share of costs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550465 >None of these support your claim. Yeah t…
> Research and Development: $19.18 billion. Loss from Operations: $20.92 billion
OpenAI isn't profitable even if you discount R&D entirely. Google search on the other hand has had ridiculous margin from the beginning, allowing the company to be highly profitable while financing significant R&D investment. These two businesses models are as different as it can be.
If ads were the solutions for profitability these companies would have used ads as their source of income from the very beginning.