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?

▲

disgruntledphd2 an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	simianwords 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.