this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
573 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

79879 readers
2590 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
573
Microsoft’s $440 billion wipeout, and investors angry about OpenAI’s debt, explained (fortune.com)
submitted 2 days ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The immediate catalyst, it seems, is an intensifying focus on capex, or capital expenditures. Microsoft revealed that its spending surged 66% to $37.5 billion in the latest quarter, even as growth in its Azure cloud business cooled slightly. Even more concerning to analysts, however, was a new disclosure that approximately 45% of the company’s $625 billion in remaining performance obligations (RPO)—a key measure of future cloud contracts—is tied directly to OpenAI, the company revealed after reporting earnings Wednesday afternoon. (Microsoft is both a major investor in and a provider of cloud-computing services to OpenAI.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They also introduce much more uncertainty and remove your ability to judge the trustworthiness of the information you're receiving. That's not to mention the social and environmental costs.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

You could say the same about people who used the early 2000s Google by entering full questions with natural language and clicking "I'm feeling lucky". There are always going to be wrong ways to use a tool. But we're discussing whether there exists a right way. And that right way includes verifying the information you receive, just like you would if you found it through a regular search engine.

The social and environmental costs are real. That's not the criticism you gave and not what the responses are disagreeing with.