That doesn't seem compatible with what he stated more recently:
> We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company.
Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/08/15/sam-altman-gpt5-launch-chat...
His possible incentives and the fact OpenAI isn't a public company simply make it hard for us to gauge which of these statements is closer to the truth.
Does anybody really think in this current time that what a CEO says has anything to do with reality and not just with hyping up ala elon recipe
Specifically, a connected CEO in post-law America.
This sort of thing used to be called fraud, but there's zero chance of criminal prosecution.
Criminal persecution? This scheme has been perfected, like what do you want to persecute. Can you say with certainty that he means it's profitable overall? What if he means it's profitable right now today it is profitable, but not yesterday or in the last week. or what if he meant if you take the mean user its profitable? so much room for interpretation, that's why there is no risk for them
> That doesn't seem compatible with what he stated more recently:
Profitable on inference doesn't mean they aren't losing money on pro plans. What's not compatible?
The API requests are likely making more money.
Yes, API pricing is usage based, but ChatGPT Pro pricing is a flat rate for a time period.
The question is then whether SaaS companies paying for GPT API pricing are profitable if they charge their users a flat rate for a time period. If their users trigger inference too much, they would also lose money.
This can be true if you assume that there exists a high number of $20 subscribers who don't use the product that much, but $200 subscribers squeeze every last bit and then some more. The balance could be still positive, but if you look at the power users alone, they might cost more than they pay.
They might even have decided “hey, these power users are willing to try and tells us what LLMs are useful for, and are even willing to pay us for the opportunity!”
> If we didn't pay for training
it is comical that something like this was even uttered in the conversation. It really shows how disconnected the tech sector is from the real world.
Imagine Intel CEO saying "If we didn't have to pay for fabs, we'd be a very profitable company." Even in passing. He'd be ridiculed.
I'm not entirely sure the analogy is fair - Amazon for example was 'ridiculed' for being hugely unprofitable for the first decade, but had underlying profitability if you removed capex.
As a counterpoint, if OpenAI were actually profitable at this early stage that could be a bad financial decision - it might mean that they aren't investing enough in what is an incredibly fierce and capital-intensive market.
Also admitting it would make this business impossible if they had to respect copyright law, so the laws shall be adjusted so that it can be a business.