> 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.
This sort of thing used to be called fraud, but there's zero chance of criminal prosecution.
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.
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.
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.
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.