Aggregates

Evidence: High: 0 Medium: 1 Low: 0 No Data: 30

Theme Radar

givemeethekeys 2026-02-24 19:19 UTC link

So handwavy... 1.4T.. 600B. Pure marketing fluff to keep the hype machine going.

lumost 2026-02-24 19:20 UTC link

Didn't oracle take out real loans and spend real dollars based on this commitment?

mnky9800n 2026-02-24 19:22 UTC link

I too have reset my spending expectations down from $1.4T.

paxys 2026-02-24 19:22 UTC link

> OpenAI is projecting that its total revenue for 2030 will be more than $280 billion

For context, that is more than the annual revenue of all but 3 tech companies in the world (Nvidia, Apple, Google), and about the same as Microsoft.

OpenAI meanwhile is projected to make $20 billion in 2026. So a casual 1300% revenue growth in under 4 years for a company that is already valued in the hundreds of billions.

Must be nice to pull numbers out of one's ass with zero consequence.

tyre 2026-02-24 19:24 UTC link

It’s interesting that they felt the need to leak this to the press.[0] Some investors or partners (or LPs, board members, etc. of those) are getting spooked by the spending plans and rightfully questioning if the return is there. Putting it in public my feel like a stronger commitment (though I doubt it.)

Even with the revised numbers, I cannot believe that they’ll have $280bn in revenue by 2030.

[0]: You can tell by the reason the sources are granted anonymity: because the information is private, not because they aren’t authorized to speak on the matter

carefree-bob 2026-02-24 19:25 UTC link

These numbers were always out of line with basic infrastructure constraints. People were talking like the US would build 50 new nuclear power plants in 10 years. And I believe we will not see $600B either, there are basic infrastructure, permitting, and power delivery limits.

cmiles8 2026-02-24 19:25 UTC link

This is more complicated than just hand wavy spending expectation resets. Other companies were taking these “commitments” and gearing up for capital investments to meet all that demand which is now vaporizing. That creates a big mess as the hype AI hype machine starts to unravel.

This looks very much like a careful move to deflate the bubble without popping it, but we’ve likely passed that point.

locusofself 2026-02-24 19:26 UTC link

The market is spooked by capex projections generally. Interesting that Microsoft, despite some apparent hesitation in 2025, seems to be still going all in on AI spend over the next several years according to the most recent earnings call.

oxag3n 2026-02-24 19:28 UTC link

We are at the end of the exponential!

90% chance in 6-12 months spending expectations drop to $0.

ryandvm 2026-02-24 19:34 UTC link

I don't get it.

A trillion here, a trillion there and all the AI companies are also telling us they're planning on wiping out 2/3 of jobs in the next 10 years? Nothing about the economics of the AI boom makes any sense.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but if we wipe out 2/3 of jobs with AI, who is going to be buying *all the stuff*?

Unemployed people aren't much of a demographic, and you can't just say UBI because that doesn't make sense either. You think the billionaires are going to allow themselves to be taxed heavily enough to support UBI just so that there's a market for people to buy stuff from them? That's nonsense.

Not trying to creep anybody out, but I just don't see a stable outcome for a society that doesn't need 2/3 of the population.

Saig6 2026-02-24 19:42 UTC link

The 1.4T commitments was over 8 years, not by 2030.

https://x.com/sama/status/1986514377470845007

louiereederson 2026-02-24 19:44 UTC link

This article is bad. It is mixing up capex and opex. OpenAI is projecting more spending on compute through their income statement now than they were 6 months ago.

jjkaczor 2026-02-24 19:45 UTC link

So are all the RAM, GPU and HD manufacturers going to honour their purchasing commitments?

chasd00 2026-02-24 19:58 UTC link

first bullet from the link

> After previously boasting $1.4 trillion in infrastructure commitments, OpenAI is now telling investors that it plans to spend $600 billion by 2030.

does the word "commitment" have a different meaning in this context? How do you cut a commitment >50%? OpenAI's partners are making decisions based on the previous commitment because.. OpenAI committed to it. I must be completely wrong because how does this not set off a severe chain reaction?

edit: as others have pointed out, the article is misleading. $1.4T was over 8 years or by 2034. 2030 is halfway to 2034 and $600B is not too far from half of $1.4T.

gehsty 2026-02-24 19:59 UTC link

It is insane that they have this little of a handle on their buildout. It makes the $600B feel even more empheral.

adverbly 2026-02-24 20:56 UTC link

What do we think? Is this possible without AGI level breakthroughs?

If we see a continuation or even a slowdown of the current trend, the technology overhang, lagging productization, and catch up from the slow adoption of AI by businesses probably gets them part of the way there, but I don't know about 1000% growth at this point... Seems kinda like they're banking on another breakthrough no? And if they don't get the breakthrough, the downside risks such as a competitor of some sort destroying their margin can't exactly be ignored...

anizan 2026-02-24 20:58 UTC link

OpenAI doesnt have a single model in top 10 models being used on openrouter.ai

Thats a weekly metric on https://openrouter.ai/rankings flagship chatgpt 5.2 model is at #16

PMF is now evolving when competitor models are either smarter or cheaper.

nova22033 2026-02-24 21:34 UTC link

Wasn't most of this spending going to ORCL?

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ORCL

Remember this press conference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUoANr3cMo

throw_rust 2026-02-24 22:06 UTC link

They sure are humble for people who say they are building God.

xiphias2 2026-02-24 23:51 UTC link

Am I the only one here who was amazed by the speed of improvement between 5.2-codex and 5.3-codex?

I feel that Sam is saying what investors want to hear, but the coding work it is capable of and how it improved with using the terminal (TerminalBench) in such a short time is something that I'm sure can't be seen by short term revenue projections. I'm sure the other AI companies are having the same speedups, but it's real.

The usual limit is of course the slop output that is not well modularized that makes it hard to do bigger things, and codex is terrible at refactoring into the right direction (it has no taste).

3x YoY growth in revenue is just not hard to imagine with this kinds of models, I think they have to get out with more expensive parallel working agents and higher-than-pro subscriptions, but it is coming I'm sure.