I would assume being profitable constitutes as winning when you're throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a technology. OpenAI and Anthropic don't have a very obvious path to profitability.

The author is pretty obvious and exhaustive about what he means by "losing": AI capex bubble is unsustainable, AI revenue is circular, no meaningful AI compute demand outside of OpenAI and Anthropic, AI products are mediocre at best (and still heavily subsidized, at that), AI is causing various mental health crises, OpenAI lost $20.9 billion on $13 billion in revenue in 2025.

OpenAI spent $17.2 billion on Azure in 2025 making the infrastructure bill exceed total revenue by about $4 billion BEFORE even counting salaries, research, stock compensation or anything else.

I feel like the responses here are purposely obtuse and people are refusing to realistically evaluate the economics of Anthropic and OpenAI

▲

AndrewKemendo 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> The author is pretty obvious and exhaustive about what he means by "losing": AI capex bubble is unsustainable, AI revenue is circular, no meaningful AI compute demand outside of OpenAI and Anthropic, AI products are mediocre at best (and still heavily subsidized, at that), AI is causing various mental health crises, OpenAI lost $20.9 billion on $13 billion in revenue in 2025.

So then it’s just profitability modulo “various mental health crises”

▲

mynameisbilly 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Obviously it's not. Would you like me to sit here and do the work of reading the article for you? Or are the numbers involved a bit too much for you to handle?

Continue shoving your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes to the absolute nonsense that is behind OpenAI and Anthropic's economics, it won't change the fact that their path to profitability doesn't exist.

▲

AndrewKemendo 7 hours ago | parent [-]

So……profitability

Is the person defending Anthropic in the room with us?

	▲	lnfromx 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But Anthropic would be profitable if they stop training cries No seriously, I recently heart someone say that and it may even be correct. However I assume this only to be correct if a stop in training doesn't change the current revenue environment - which it absolutely would. I am still convinced a lot of demand for tokens is artificial in the sense that people buy tokens because thats what you do right now (and its convenient) not because the roi is so great.