this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
936 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

88725 readers
2919 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1800doctorb@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Since I haven’t seen it yet in this conversation, I think I need to bring some better context to what this article is claiming.

No, OpenAI did not assume they were making $70 billion. They’ve always known their existing number. In fact, that number IS what was reported to investors.

The $70 billion number is coming from a specific investor that wanted to adjust the definition of revenue to get a more “apples to apples” comparison to Anthropic’s numbers.

When these companies license their models to hypervisors (AWS, Azure, etc), those hypervisors take a cut. OpenAI does not report that cut as revenue. This investor wanted to add it back in to get a “total demand for AI tokens” number.

They are 2 completely different metrics coming from 2 completely different groups.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Are you suggesting that The End is not, in fact, Near? And OpenAI is not about to collapse into bankruptcy, ending the entire AI ecosystem?

[–] 1800doctorb@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Maybe I’ll go out on a limb and say this specific piece of news is not indication of the AI apocalypse. There are still plenty of things to be skeptical of long term, but this itself is not an indication of an inevitable crash.

[–] Nowtayneicangetinto@thelemmy.club -2 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I wish more people realized AI is not going any where any time soon, regardless of their feelings on it.

[–] distante@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Is not about AI going away, is about the huge economic problem the current bubble will cause.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It was the recent estimation that hyperscale LLMs need to earn $6 trillion a year to break even. I don't think governments can afford six trillion for their surveillance states and robot armies.

That is the recent news that harbingers a potential 2026 AI bubble burst.

Open AI has been hemorrhaging money and taking on vast debt for a while. That's not really news.

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I agree, it truly is going nowhere. This tech is exactly as useless and uninspiring as it’s always been.

[–] Jako302@feddit.org 3 points 2 days ago

Depends in what exactly you mean with AI here. AI as a tech is going to stay, Pandoras box is open and there is no going back now.

The AI companies tho, the actual subject of this post, are going to crash and burn eventually. Not all at the same time and maybe not every single one, but a good portion of them will go down the drain .

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That cuts both ways. The hype artists who insist it's going to become the foundation of all professional services is also bullshitting you.

But yeah, these tech companies aren't going to just vanish, any more than IBM or Yahoo did in prior downturns.