No. You should read the article

> based on information that was provided to investors.

It was OpenAI spreading their bullshit annualized revenue.

OpenAI and Anthropic always play this silly game to pretend they are in anyway viable. It is always ARR, "adjusted" revenue, etc. "We are profitable when we pretend we don't have expenses".

▲

spprashant an hour ago | parent | next [-]

OpenAI only provided the 70% increase figure. The investors were assuming a $40bn base number, which the media then took to mean the ARR is now 70bn.

Its comically bad how this circus is playing out.

▲

jstummbillig an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How does that contradict what parent said? Yes, obviously they are pointing at something for their numbers, but something as vague as "based on information that was provided to investors" might still just be entirely nonsense and is certainly not enough to establish confidence as to the validity of the claim.

▲

surgical_fire an hour ago | parent [-]

Parent implied that the previous number was a fabrication from FT, instead of it being a fabrication from OpenAI.

The press that reports on this shit is very much complicit, they report on bullshit metrics spread by these companies to generate hype.

> outside of OpenAI control.

If OpenAI is as uncertain of their numbers to the magnitude of 20B, they should stop spreading bullshit metrics. In fact this should be considered fraud.

	▲	jstummbillig an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What I was saying: What FT presents in the way they do should not be enough to move the needle and convince anyone that this happened, regardless of what might have happened and that it could have happened. People can just write stuff. That does not make it wrong but that also does not make it right. If your claim rests on some claim that some anonymous actor got some information, that's just not super convincing and neither is pointing at it as some sort of truth.

▲

gruez an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>No. You should read the article

>> based on information that was provided to investors.

>It was OpenAI spreading their bullshit annualized revenue.

Did you read the article?

>The discrepancy arose from attempts by OpenAI’s own investors to produce a direct comparison with Anthropic’s annualised revenues, according to a person familiar with the matter. The pair calculate the figure in different ways, with Anthropic including the revenue from sales via cloud partners such as Amazon’s AWS and Google Cloud, while OpenAI does not.

>Investors’ efforts to “gross up” OpenAI’s annualised revenue prompted reports that the figure was around $40bn in July, said the person.

>OpenAI later told its backers that its annualised revenues had jumped more than 70 per cent since July, prompting reports that the figure was about $70bn at the end of September — a number the company did not deny.

>However, the new investor presentation shows close to $30bn annualised revenues in July.

Sounds like what happened wasn't that openai "spreading their bullshit annualized revenue", it was that they gave some vague figure that investors the media and other investors extrapolated, and it turned out that extrapolation was incorrect. Both the $40bn and $70bn figure did not come from openai directly.

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

EBITDA!