OpenAI closes funding round at an $852B valuation

Post by baq » Wed, Apr 01, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

bandrami wrote: post #341

nl wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based entirely on the announcements of the inference providers themselves who also get very cagey when asked to show their work I mean sure, it's self reported. But the inference prices somewhere like Fireworks or TogetherAI charges is comparable to what Google/AWS/Azure charge for the same model an we know they aren't losing money - they have public accounts that show it, eg: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/wall…

> If someone has a subscription then yes that is pretty normal. Not if you've substantively changed rate limits 3 times in the last 5 months while still counting those forecast revenues. In most industries that's called rug-pulling.

Post by baq » Wed, Apr 01, 2026, 6:05 AM UTC

outside1234 wrote: post #229

aurareturn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do you think twenty competitors can stay competitive for years to come? Industries always consolidate and winners emerge. SOTA LLMs look like a natural monopoly or duopoly to me because the cost to train the next model keeps going up such that it won't make sense for 20 competitors to compete at the very high end. TSMC is a perfect example of this. Fab costs double every 4 years (Rock’s Law). It's almost impo…

Google has completely caught OpenAI. Anthropic has a better coding model, but I'm sure Google is working on that too.

Post by parineum » Wed, Apr 01, 2026, 6:06 AM UTC

voganmother42 wrote: post #332

gunsle wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an absurd leap. OpenAI is the maga brand because they simp for government contracts like any massive company would?

Did you miss the cancel/unsubscribe gpt boycott? It was only about a month ago. Many people I know cancelled/unsubscribed. To be fair though, most people I have talked with needed almost no encouragement to move to anthropic or google (better products, easy to switch etc). Consumer sentiment can change quickly.

Post by baq » Wed, Apr 01, 2026, 6:08 AM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #304

aurareturn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do you think twenty competitors can stay competitive for years to come? Industries always consolidate and winners emerge. SOTA LLMs look like a natural monopoly or duopoly to me because the cost to train the next model keeps going up such that it won't make sense for 20 competitors to compete at the very high end. TSMC is a perfect example of this. Fab costs double every 4 years (Rock’s Law). It's almost impo…

The barrier to replicating TSMC isn't just cost, it's supply chain, geopolitics, and talent. Only one company on Earth can make the UV lithography machines TSMC buys for their highest end fabs, and they're not selling to anyone else. The PRC tried to brute force this supply chain backed by the full might of the Party's blank check, all red tape cut, literally the best possible duplication scenario, and they failed.

Post by troupo » Wed, Apr 01, 2026, 6:20 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #201

Swizec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wheras only profit should matter Profit is money you couldn’t figure out how to spend. During growth, you want positive operating margins with nominal profits. When the company/market matures, you want pure profits because shareholders like money. If you can find a way to invest those profits in new areas of growth, that’s better.

Not sure why you’re downvoted. Everyone wants to treat OpenAI like a car wash business where they need to make a profit almost immediately. I don’t know why people can’t understand that the industry is in a rapid growth stage and investing the money is more important than making a profit now. The profits will come later.