Sorry if the joke didn't land; I have heard a lot of different numbers for the size of US labs' models, but never seen any of them substantiated, so I think you're likely to just get more rumours in answer to this question.
My personal take, with no sources: 100T sounds excessively high given they need to be able to actually serve these things on commercially available hardware. I would guess they are in the same order of magnitude as the Chinese frontier models. It's possible their edge is in RL training methods, training-time compute, and access to data (e.g. from customers' CC/Codex sessions), not in model size.
Sorry if the joke didn't land; I have heard a lot of different numbers for the size of US labs' models, but never seen any of them substantiated, so I think you're likely to just get more rumours in answer to this question.
My personal take, with no sources: 100T sounds excessively high given they need to be able to actually serve these things on commercially available hardware. I would guess they are in the same order of magnitude as the Chinese frontier models. It's possible their edge is in RL training methods, training-time compute, and access to data (e.g. from customers' CC/Codex sessions), not in model size.