|
|
|
|
|
by memothon
640 days ago
|
|
Sorry I should have been more specific. The article does mention that OpenAI has huge revenue. > While The Information reported that OpenAI's revenue is $3.5 to $4.5 billion a year in July, The New York Times reported last week that OpenAI's annual revenues have "now topped $2 billion," which would mean that the end-of-year numbers will likely trend toward the lower end of the estimate. But then the author claims that the business value is questionable. > And even if they did, it isn't clear whether generative AI actually provides much business value at all. The Information reported last week that customers of Microsoft's 365 suite [snip] I would have appreciated a deeper discussion of why OpenAI's revenue isn't a data point toward generative AI having some business value. Presumably if nobody was using generative AI in a way that gives them value, OpenAI wouldn't be using all those GPU hours. That's what I was missing from the article personally. |
|
> Based on how unprofitable they are, I hypothesize that if OpenAI or Anthropic charged prices closer to their actual costs, there would be a ten-to-a-hundred-times increase in the price of API calls, though it's impossible to say how much without the actual numbers.
Lots of revenue is flowing into generative AI but would that trend continue if they started needing to actually cover costs? And how much of that revenue is from AI companies that would pop right alongside them?