Then it didn’t make 13 billion….. and it didn’t lose 21 billion.
It lost 8 billion. That’s how math works.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
419 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
85602 readers
3709 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You're not wrong, but neither is the title. That's just how business accounting works. Ultimately, it's still the same conclusion ($8 billion loss)
That's a weird way of saying that they had a net loss of $8 billion. Are you trying to imply that this is somehow extraordinary for a growth company? How do you figure that?
So they lost $8b.
Altman is such a miserable cunt.
he pretty much is created by thiel, so yes he is. since ALtman met his husband at one of thiels "pool" parties. just like how he plucked vance out of obscurity from yale. he does love his gay puppets.
indeed
Yep, defo not a bubble.
Vibe stocks
A lot of people are gonna give openaishit over this, but the old cliché is true; gotta spend money to lose money.
At a personal scale you can just light a few bills on fire, and you're good. Maybe even gamble away a home or something if you're filthy rich.
But at this scale that just doesn't work. Burning this amount of money takes infrastructure, trucks, roads, labor, and facilities. Otherwise the poor's might take some of it.
Can you imagine what those people would spend this kind of money on?
What's their op ex though? I feel like there must be a sizable portion of that which isn't actually necessary to keep the service up.
So the the operating expense was greater than their revenue from operations by about 2, but it seems like they’re minimizing it by hiding the cost of some of the compute inside marketing and training costs. This is something that a few AI companies in China have been caught doing to make it seem like they’re doing better than they are. So they could be incinerating money at an even faster rate than they just admitted.
And in R&D
Yah, given that “training models” doesn’t stop when the model is finished and released. Like, a released model needs to be continuously tweaked to keep it up to date or to deal with problems that have occurred. Even if that’s not literally tokens used by customers, it is compute being used to provide service to customers.
And that’s just assuming that they’re not just hiding some compute costs used to service customer demand inside the R&D budget. “Oh, you see, this pool of customers are being served with an experimental version, so any compute here is actually R&D, any API fees or subscription payments made by them of course get counted towards normal revenue.”
Bah that's baby numbers compared to what "private space" will accomplish!
"So what did you do with the $100,000?"
"I invested it and turned it into sixteen THOUSAND dollars. "
OpenAI:
"I DON'T NEED MONEY! I DON'T EVEN LIKE IT! I JUST WANNA THROW IT AWWWAAAAAAY!!"
im betting sam altman asked claude instead of CHAPGPT to how much to invest and where.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›