[infecto]

FTFY? Cute, but you’re arguing against a strawman. My point wasn’t that companies are using GPT to draw maps, it’s that dismissing the tech based on one goofy output ignores the far more common, revenue-generating use cases already in production.

As for “single-digit billions in revenue vs. hundreds of billions in expenses,” that’s just bad math. You’re conflating the total AI capex from hyperscalers with OpenAI’s own P&L. Yes, training is capital-intensive, but the marginal cost to serve (especially at scale) is much lower, and plenty of deployments are already profitable on an operating basis when you strip out R&D burn.

The funding structure question is fair, the for-profit conversion path matters but pretending the whole business is propped up solely by infinite investor charity is just wrong.

[emccue]

Microsoft AI Revenue In 2025: $13 billion, with $10 billion from OpenAI, sold "at a heavily discounted rate that essentially only covers costs for operating the servers."

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $80 billion

---

Amazon AI Revenue In 2025: $5 billion

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $105 billion

---

Google AI Revenue: $7.7 Billion (at most)

Capital Expenditures in 2025: $75 Billion

---

Meta AI Revenue: $2bn to $3bn

Capital Expenditures In 2025: $72 Billion

---

The math is bad, but its not "bad math."

(Numbers from here: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-haters-gui/)

[infecto]

Take the emotional level down a notch. You seemed to miss the point. Hyperscaler spend does not equate to OpenAI P&L.

[bathtub365]

I didn’t read any emotional level in the post you responded to. Where is it?