The people who are completely sold on the belief that AI providers are running at a profit believe him to be utterly, totally and completely wrong in every one of his predictions.
The people who are completely sold on the belief that AI providers are running at a loss they can never recover from believe him to be utterly, totally and completely correct in every one of his predictions.
The reality is that it's not his predictions that matter, but his data, which is almost always correct as of time of writing. If you ignore his opinions, the data presented on liabilities, spend, revenue, loans, commitments, etc across Coreweave, Stargate, Oracle and all of the usual AI companies is, as far as I can tell, correct.
IOW, when it comes to his opinions, it's all about your priors. His data is good, though.
> The reality is that it's not his predictions that matter, but his data, which is almost always correct as of time of writing. If you ignore his opinions, the data presented on liabilities, spend, revenue, loans, commitments, etc across Coreweave, Stargate, Oracle and all of the usual AI companies is, as far as I can tell, correct.
Yeah, I think that he does well with sources and data. I also think that his editorialising can be off-putting for lots of people. I kinda enjoy it, but accept that I have niche tastes.
Not only not understanding ARR, he simply doesn't do data analysis properly - he misses some few months and days in his calculation to prop up his point. This is a mistake chatgpt would have caught.
That's the trouble I have with ARR, because there's no standard, people engage in shenanigans. I do find the 5bn lifetime revenue versus their ARR figures pretty sketchy which is why I really want to see the S1.
Can you be more specific on his incorrect calculations please?
Wait. ARR has no precise definition but has a clear social understanding. It’s clear Ed doesn’t get that and ARR not having a clear definition doesn’t absolve him of the mistake. His misunderstanding was on a different axis.
The miscalculations are pretty clearly pointed out in the tweet I linked earlier.
> Wait. ARR has no precise definition but has a clear social understanding.
This is (historically) a recipe for fraud and badness. If ARR is important enough to be reported, then there should be a GAAP definition.
Do you use calendar month or four week rolling? Do you account for seasonality? How do you recognise revenue? (My sense is that Anthropic do sketchy things with credits, as the consumer ones last for like 180 days and then expire).
ARR is a really, really, really easy metric to make sound like whatever you want which is why I am sceptical of it.
EDIT: I looked at the tweet which is a screenshot of a supposed sheet that Ed built. Unless you have a source for the sheet then I'll need to assign this relatively low credibility (don't know the user, it's a screenshot with no link).
The user is someone I've followed for more than a decade:
> I’m a reporter who has written about technology, economics, and public policy for more than a decade. Before I launched Understanding AI, I wrote for the Washington Post, Vox.com, and Ars Technica. I have a master’s degree in computer science from Princeton.
> I’m working on Understanding AI full-time, and I have no outside investors or donors. Since I started it in 2023, paying subscribers have accounted for a large majority of my income (you can see full details on my source of income on my disclosure page). Their support allows me to work on the newsletter full-time.
Passes my credibility check because I've read a lot of his work, and he's been around the block a few times in journalism circles.
> But I’m a curious little critter and went ahead and added up all of the times that Anthropic had talked about its annualized revenue from 2025 onward, and the results — which you can find with links here! — and based on my calculations, just using published annualized revenues gets us to $4.837 billion.
It’s here in the blog.
> This is (historically) a recipe for fraud and badness. If ARR is important enough to be reported, then there should be a GAAP definition.
I don't think anyone believes the major AI providers are running at a profit? They are openly investing heavily into R&D and building out infrastructure, and according to these numbers way more than revenue. It wouldn't make sense for any of these companies to run at a profit right now as they're still aggressively expanding. The question is whether they will break even in the future, and capture a large enough market segment to sustain the business, allowing revenue to outgrow costs. If these numbers are real, revenue is already higher than COGS which is a really good signal for them.
I think the question is more about whether people believe this is a sound business in the long term, which imo isn't possible to tell based on these numbers yet.
> The people who are completely sold on the belief that AI providers are running at a loss they can never recover from believe him to be utterly, totally and completely correct in every one of his predictions.
It's funny, because you can both believe that these entities are bleeding money on every token and also believe that "financial engineering" will bail them out when they IPO despite this fact.
The fundamentals of running a business that sells products or services for more than the cost to produce them seem increasingly decoupled from the financial success of the company and its owners.
Up until this post, I thought he was someone with good financial insight, analytical chops, and business sense, stuck with an audience that thinks it's still 2023 and ChatGPT 3 is still the pinnacle of the technology, and that he therefore has to pander to in order to pay the bills.
After this supposedly being the reveal for his bubble-bursting massive revelation that will send the industry flying and lead to journalists kicking in his door for interview requests and exposés, I think... well, not that anymore. I thought "the frontier labs are losing money" was rather universally understood, and this really isn't even as bad as the stuff that's publicly visible; the fact that they keep raising hundreds of billions of dollars that they'll one day supposedly be required to show returns on?
> After this supposedly being the reveal for his bubble-bursting massive revelation that will send the industry flying and lead to journalists kicking in his door for interview requests and exposés
I mean, the fact that lots of expenses are not scaling with revenue (sales and marketing 5xed versus revenue 3xing) and that the losses are very very large is important. More importantly, these are audited figures which haven't been seen before.
Right, but this still isn't exactly new information. I don't think anyone was assuming that the labs are close to being profitable or that the losses wouldn't be rather large. The way this was announced was as if it was going to be a bombshell, but it just confirms what everyone (including the investors) was assuming anyway. Now if he had concrete numbers about whether inference at API pricing is profitable, that'd be a different thing (and it's what that hype bit was heavily implying since it's something he constantly keeps harping on, and rightfully so), but as it stands, nothing about these numbers says anything about whether this fundamentally has a road to profitability. It just says that this is a super high-risk high-reward investment, which isn't new information.
> As OpenAI’s worth rose, the increased value of those investor rights created a roughly $30bn charge, added the person. The charge is not expected to recur following the restructuring, they said.
> Stripping out the charge and other non-cash expenses, such as stock-based compensation of staff and computing credits from Microsoft, OpenAI’s losses were $8bn, according to the person.
As a long time FT subscriber, I'm happy you're using them as a source. The Zitron details were more useful to me though.
And none of my points have anything to do with the once off losses. I'm observing that a bunch of costs appear to be scaling with revenue or above revenue, which does not bode well for future profitability.
Also, as an aside, stripping out equity grants is really misleading for a private, high growth tech company.
The losses are scaling with revenue because increase in (expected) revenue increases valuation which increases compensation.
Once expectation stabilises these losses won’t happen because the valuation will remain constant.
A lot of people were paid really high equity grants simply because they started low. You can’t expect them to be paid the same amount each time.
FT themselves point this out and who you believe is up to you.
> The losses are scaling with revenue because increase in (expected) revenue increases valuation which increases compensation.
My original point around equity is that if you pay a substantial fraction of comp in this form, then leaving it out of expenses is pretty bizarre.
Is it your contention that the equity grants are the cause of their increasing losses?
I believe that this is probably not true at all, it's more likely to be S&M (salespeople scale as N not log(N) like engineering/product) particularly given that the product requires tuning for lots of companies (hence all the FDE hires).
More generally, the training costs seem to be increasing which is bad for their future profitability.
Also it should be obvious that you shouldn’t extrapolate stock based compensation in a scale up. People make a one time bounty but that is not recurring obviously.
> Before OpenAI’s switch late last year to become a public benefit corporation, investors in the company received convertible interest rights rather than conventional equity. Under US accounting rules, those interests were treated as liabilities and periodically revalued as the company’s valuation increased.
As OpenAI’s worth rose, the increased value of those investor rights created a roughly $30bn charge, added the person. The charge is not expected to recur following the restructuring, they said.
Stripping out the charge and other non-cash expenses, such as stock-based compensation of staff and computing credits from Microsoft, OpenAI’s losses were $8bn, according to the person.
I presume that this is what you're talking about, right?
That doesn't actually disagree with what I noted above using the (more detailed) figures from Ed's article. I noted that their revenue scaled by about 3x, while many costs (cost of revenue, sales & marketing, r&d) scaled by either equal (r&d) or greater than their revenue scaled. That's the point I was (apparently badly) making, nothing to do with the stock based compensation causing their losses. In any case, the loss was actually driven by treatment of the non-profit shares.
> Also it should be obvious that you shouldn’t extrapolate stock based compensation in a scale up. People make a one time bounty but that is not recurring obviously.
Correct, in some sense this is a once-off, however, most tech companies continue granting stock over time, so it's definitely worth including in actual margins. (This is a more general point that's not exclusive to Open AI).
