> 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.

Part of the losses are because of valuation increase and the real operating losses are much lower.

https://www.ft.com/content/e15b0d7e-ff6b-4f16-ba7a-4068feddb... this uses the same sources and answers more honestly and Ed Zitron doesn't touch on this.

> 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.

Whom would you trust? FT or Ed Zitron?