ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users of which the vast majority are normal people - not companies. The demand is there despite it not being able to increase company profit margins the way people expected. I don’t see this computing infrastructure needing to run idle anytime soon.
I think OP is talking about all of the future data centers that are allegedly being build despite nobody even knowing where. Nvidia has agreed to pay OpenAI $10B per gigawatt of datacenter for 10 gigawatts of datacenter build up over the next few years.
Unlikely that will fully materialize, but that’s the current outlook.
Theres a proposal for one in Scotland that will use up as much electricity as the whole country combined (Except during winter where peak load is a whopping 1/3 higher than the proposed data centre.
The free plan of chatgtp is more than enough for most people. And when they decide to start charging for it, probably 30% of free users will switch to a different (mahbe even locally run) Ai.
Chatgpt is constantly losing money, public surface-level interest won’t matter much when the capital runs out and they’re still accruing significant debt without any revenue.
A major problem faced by first-mover companies like OpenAI is that they spend an enormous amount of money on basic research and initial marketing and hardware purchases to set up in the first place. Those expenses become debts and have to be paid off by the business later. If they were to go bankrupt and sell off ChatGPT to some other company for pennies on the dollar that new owner would be in a much better position to be profitable.
There is clearly an enormous demand for AI services, despite all the “nobody wants this” griping you may hear in social media bubbles. That dermand’s not going to disappear and the AIs themselves won’t disappear. It’s just a matter of finding the right price to balance things out.
Nope, you’ll certainly need a source to back that speculation up.
Half a billion people are “using” AI and the total llm market cap is a few billion. On average, users may be willing to pay up to 50 cents a month for inaccurate word association.
Not even a drop in the buckets companies need to fill up with everything they’re spending just on advertising, not to mention infrastructure, utility and upgrade costs.
People are statistically not willing to sustainably pay for llms, even if we assumed the rosy predictions of 20x LLM market caps in a decade.
Devil’s advocate: Increased AI cash flow could occur if people don’t realize their ai “search results” are paid advertisements, and considering longstanding obliviousness to directed advertising and the recent abolishment of US consumer rights…it could happen.
Would you care to provide any evidence for your speculation that people are willing to pay enough for AI to sustain its costs?
ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users and their total revenue in 2025 was 13 billion with 70% coming from normal users. That’s drop in the bucket though considering they’ve commited to investing a trillion dollars into new computing capacity over the next 10 years.
ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users of which the vast majority are normal people - not companies. The demand is there despite it not being able to increase company profit margins the way people expected. I don’t see this computing infrastructure needing to run idle anytime soon.
I think OP is talking about all of the future data centers that are allegedly being build despite nobody even knowing where. Nvidia has agreed to pay OpenAI $10B per gigawatt of datacenter for 10 gigawatts of datacenter build up over the next few years.
Unlikely that will fully materialize, but that’s the current outlook.
Theres a proposal for one in Scotland that will use up as much electricity as the whole country combined (Except during winter where peak load is a whopping 1/3 higher than the proposed data centre.
They’re trying to build several right now near my home in Southeast Michigan. So now you know where.
That sucks. Sorry about your luck.
We’re doing our best to shut down wherever they pop up but they REALLY want our electricity, land, and water.
The free plan of chatgtp is more than enough for most people. And when they decide to start charging for it, probably 30% of free users will switch to a different (mahbe even locally run) Ai.
Chatgpt is constantly losing money, public surface-level interest won’t matter much when the capital runs out and they’re still accruing significant debt without any revenue.
They are about to put ads in the service. The money will be made eventually
A major problem faced by first-mover companies like OpenAI is that they spend an enormous amount of money on basic research and initial marketing and hardware purchases to set up in the first place. Those expenses become debts and have to be paid off by the business later. If they were to go bankrupt and sell off ChatGPT to some other company for pennies on the dollar that new owner would be in a much better position to be profitable.
There is clearly an enormous demand for AI services, despite all the “nobody wants this” griping you may hear in social media bubbles. That dermand’s not going to disappear and the AIs themselves won’t disappear. It’s just a matter of finding the right price to balance things out.
They’re losing money mostly because of massive investments in new datacenters and GPUs. Not because people are not willing to pay for using it.
Nope, you’ll certainly need a source to back that speculation up.
Half a billion people are “using” AI and the total llm market cap is a few billion. On average, users may be willing to pay up to 50 cents a month for inaccurate word association.
Not even a drop in the buckets companies need to fill up with everything they’re spending just on advertising, not to mention infrastructure, utility and upgrade costs.
People are statistically not willing to sustainably pay for llms, even if we assumed the rosy predictions of 20x LLM market caps in a decade.
Devil’s advocate: Increased AI cash flow could occur if people don’t realize their ai “search results” are paid advertisements, and considering longstanding obliviousness to directed advertising and the recent abolishment of US consumer rights…it could happen.
“Nope” implies you already have a source proving me wrong.
Yes; the included source and explanatory paragraph above in the same comment you are referencing.
Would you care to provide any evidence for your speculation that people are willing to pay enough for AI to sustain its costs?
ChatGPT alone has 800 million weekly users and their total revenue in 2025 was 13 billion with 70% coming from normal users. That’s drop in the bucket though considering they’ve commited to investing a trillion dollars into new computing capacity over the next 10 years.
This is why you should provide a source, your numbers and associated assumptions are incorrect:
Chatgpt has estimated revenue of 1.3 billion, not 13 billion, neither of which are remotely significant as revenue streams relative to cost.
That’s the thrust of my opening paragraph, and then you appear to have taken up my drop in the bucket analogy, so i guess we’re on the same page now.
Would be a lot quicker and easier if you just googled it yourself.
OpenAI’s annualized revenue hits $10 billion, up from $5.5 billion in December 2024
OpenAI hits $12 billion in annualized revenue, The Information reports
OpenAI (MSFT) Revenue Doubles to $10 Billion as AI Adoption Accelerates
OpenAI revenue doubles to $12 bn, clocks in 700 mn weekly ChatGPT users
OpenAI hits $12 Billion annualized revenue with 700M weekly users
OpenAI generates $4.3 billion in revenue in first half of 2025, the Information reports
OpenAI has five years to turn $13 billion into $1 trillion
OpenAI hits $10 billion in annual recurring revenue fueled by ChatGPT growth