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.