Aramco was the first in 2016. But Aramco basically only has 2.5% free float on the market. Apple was the first with a near 100% free float on the market.
To me it’s more about the scale of these numbers. After billions, people (like me) kind of lose intuition about how gigantic these numbers actually are. Yes GDP has time in its unit, but it still gives a general idea of the size.
The story here is that Sam wanted to raise a lot more, but could not. Investors almost certainly want to see how the Anthropic IPO plays out before deciding whether to keep showering these companies with money.
Valuation wouldn’t hold if public. He couldn’t raise the 30B he wanted. I’m not sure how much runway OpenAI has, but sounds like a similar to Anthropic story with valuation likely if in the public markets declining.
Not sure how long you'll be able to sell compute to anthropic for. They are constrained right now but they have an insane pipeline of take or pay contracts, and if those are delivered they'll be drowning in compute in a couple of years time.
Do you think they would actually sell compute to anthropic? Relative to working with other labs that feels like conceding the overall AI race atleast outside of consumer.
They could just do it through azure or aws. Also, at these numbers a pseudo merger between OpenAI and Anthropic could happen. There is no anti trust anymore. It’s all the same owners for all these companies… the only anti trust is between usa, Russia, Europe, China, and the middle powers.
I think OpenAI is one of the most important companies in a generation, but on a tangent, I remember the first time a company broke a $1T market cap, and it was a significant moment. Nowadays multi-trillion-dollar valuations are becoming more common — I wonder how much it reflects inflation vs companies being genuinely bigger than they used to be. If it’s more about inflation, then we can expect to see dozens and hundreds more in the coming decades. Founders: recalibrate your ambition for the new era.
2018 when Apple was first across the threshold, it’s P/E was around 20. Currently near 40.
Then inflation has cut the dollar in half in a bunch of categories. So that would put it at $4T with no growth at all.
Another way to look at it would be to think of this openAI news as announcing they have a $250B valuation if you’re fixated on pre-covid prices like I am. :)
It's inflation, and it's an important lesson as to the dynamics of financial markets in the context of a high debt regime.
Regardless of what officials say, the only way out of the looming debt crisis in developed nations is to turn on the money printers and inflate the debt away. That's literally the only way out.
Next look at how concentrated inflation gains become in financial assets. Corporate valuations are the first thing to inflate (wages last, and at a much lower rate especially as you move down the income ladder).
Finally recognize that the concentration of wealth in the stock market has made the market itself too big to fail, meaning central bank intervention whenever things get too gruesome. Enter moral hazard at the government backstopped casino.
All of this leads to one conclusion: put all of your money in the stock market. Literally just buy the S&P, ideally a 2x levered S&P index ETF given historical studies of optimal leverage, and just let it ride...
Your take on trickle down economics is so depressing. I've come to the same conclusion. The main problem is that you need to time the phases of your life with what the very visible hand incentiveses. Also the hand doesn't tell you when the rug is pulled and there is a new groft...
The real headline is that they couldn’t hit what they wanted in terms of valuation and funds raised. Just were not enough people willing to invest given concerns that it may be downhill from here for a while on AI.
This will also make it even harder to avoid any future IPO being a down round. They’re almost certainly worth much less than Anthropic and Anthropic is, per reports, struggling to keep its valuation much above 1T, and even that may fall through.
I would be shocked if Anthropic IPOs below 1.25T. Prediction markets have it at 1.625T now. Even quite conservative Aswath Damodaran puts it at 1.45T.
I think once you go below that you can probably just sell on open market without any IPO dance like finding institutional investors.
OpenAI is a bit more scattered brained and spread across multiple products.
Anthropic is way more focused. That helps in a way that builds upon another: their product tends to be better and the people's perception of it as well.
But "much less"? OpenAI needs a month or two of good choices, progress & announcements, and that flips. On the other hand, Deepseek could blow both out of the water unexpectedly, ending the argument about who has the superior tech.
There's also the Elon factor. Anthropic has a good relationship with Elon (to the point where he discounted the compute sold to them by quite a lot) while OpenAI/Sama is the devil to him.
What if I asserted that the MCP economy could be worth 5x more than LLM market since tools usually end up just being a fraction of the opportunity compared to market domination.
Maybe. The problem with the MCP economy is that it's not clear yet what shape it can take. If it takes the shape of API integration solutions, then it won't be 5x. If it takes the shape of an App Store, then yes.
I think arguments for either direction are valid. On one hand, MCPs are essentially APIs used by developers. Developers will demand some form of open reusable standard, "MCP gateways" or hosts will spring up to host them, hyperscaleres will offer them, and ultimately it will be another cloud commodity.
On the other hand, some of the target users of MCPs is the consumer market rather than the developer market. An App Store model makes sense there and the provider/platform can collect the lucrative 30% cut and end consumers’ numbers makes for massive revenue opportunity. This dictates a walled garden "Agent" like Muse or Instant.
If #1 is the direction the market goes in, then more batteries-included solutions like Muse or Hermes become the next obvious step up the chain. If #2 wins, then yes having your MCP available to on a Muse App Store that Meta takes a cut of some sort would be larger.
> Anthropic is way more focused. That helps in a way that builds upon another: their product tends to be better and the people's perception of it as well.
But they are still not likely to be investment-grade at IPO.
mostly because they got all those 500B hardware commitments on balance sheet.
Without them they have best coding/other(e.g. most accountants prefer claude) model on the market, with solid increasing revenue channels and loyal customer base.
I disagree with this, most normies will never use Claude code... but they WILL use ChatGPTs various modes and apps that handle a lot of things for them.
Their recent "intelligent ui" (forget what they call it), which turns the chat almost into a magazine is amazing for people when they start doing measuring or responses comeback as little graphs or diagrams showing this or that.
Claude is still not able to generate pixel images.
I agree Claude is better for the likes of you and I, but I see the opposite in non-technical people which is most people
Normie consumers will probably not ever spend more than $15/mo on LLMs as they exist currently if they would spend money at all so their LTV will probably just turn into race to the bottom performance marketing
Devs and the token-consuming services they create are probably a more valuable market than the entirety of the glorified search engine use cases that the average consumer is focused on
Not sure, but in the meantime they removed the option to right click "Open in new tab" on the "New chat" button (first one in the sidebar) in chatgpt.com
> Deepseek could blow both out of the water unexpectedly
This is tantamount to saying that the value proposition is unknown, if a supposed trillion dollar company could get upended overnight by a startup
Where's the moat, the unassailable first mover advantage, the enterprise lock intengrations that mean nobody could realistically move you out of the way even if they had slightly better tech ? If none of these exist, investors should be scared.
DeepSeek can't come out of nowhere to match them. They don't have anywhere near enough compute for that; Liang Wenfeng said as much in his leaked comments to investors. That's the moat.
> There's also the Elon factor. Anthropic has a good relationship with Elon (to the point where he discounted the compute sold to them by quite a lot) while OpenAI/Sama is the devil to him.
The Elon association could be a long-term negative.
It certainly didn't help the Republicans in this last election even with Elon donating half a billion dollars to them, and there are reasons to believe that flip on the political side will eventually matter on the business side of things.
Elon's Texas "home base" just flipped blue in a big way.
And unless the winds change significantly in terms of the politics surrounding data centers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Memphis city council get purged of pro-Colossus members, replaced by anti-data-center candidates when the next elections take place in Oct 2027.
Weird, I've been told repeatedly that inference is wildly profitable for both of these companies and waves hands training costs are irrelevant for some reason.
It’s: we spent X billion to train our HUGE model and it’s so good we can make money off it. Please fund us for Y billion to build the HUGER model that will maybe destroy the planet, and if it doesn’t we can’t sell it back to users at profit because of legitimate security concerns. And then we’ll need Z billion to train...
Does anyone see the path to ROI here? There is clearly a profitable business model within these big AI labs, but it’s held captive by messianic 90-page IPO risk statements. I know they want to sell restricted access to the more capable models but the market for those kind of professional services doesn’t even exist yet.
Are there enough people using AI for coding and advanced math and physics who need even better models to justify these values? Because for "normie" non-coding tasks (searching, summarizing, writing) which it seems to me are what the vast majority of users would use, we have ChatGPT at work it defaults to the Luna 6 model and it seems fine as-is today.
"They're almost certainly worth much less than Anthropic" you type that with so much conviction. I have no dog in this fight, but I'm not so such. We have seen OpenAI provide models in Audio, Image, Video, etc. Perhaps it's for publicity, but their models have tackled difficult math problems and those that I know that use their top models are just as happy with it as they are with Opus 5.5. IMO, I think they are neck and neck.
You can believe than anthropic is a better investment (“worth more”) than OpenAI while still thinking they’re both overvalued (or will underperform other investments).
No idea who's actually worth more than who here, but I will say that recently I've stopped using Opus at work for the lion's share of technical work. I used GPT-6.1 Sol for one big project I tackled last week, where the agents spent about 20 hours to produce ~73k LoC across 22 PRs. While the technical decisions and code weren't bad and design gaps were left clearly enumerated, the overall "human factor" was terrible, in the sense that the plan docs were overly-verbose and difficult to read and PR descriptions were abysmal. Numbers and words were run together all over the place where there should have been spaces. At that point I pointed Opus 5.5 at the whole thing and asked it to double-check design and code and rewrite all the "for human consumption" text in plan docs and PR description, and it did a phenomenal job of that part of it. Plan docs were made much more concise with emphasis on the strategic parts of the problem. Opus accepted the vast majority of the design and code that GPT-6.1 Sol had produced.
Of course I have no idea what the technical results would have been if I had just used Opus 5.5 end-to-end, but I'm fairly confident it would have been more expensive given the rates my company pays for each. For that matter I wonder how Kimi3.1 Pro or DeepSeek 4.1 Flash 1017 would have done with various parts of the job. In fact I may try rerunning the whole thing using open weight models next week just out of curiosity.
If Kimi+DeepSeek produce something roughly equivalent, then just from my own personal experience with a novel problem involving legacy in-house code, as opposed to public benchmarks for which I don't have a great handle on how well they correlate with value produced by the models, that will make me question the valuation of both OpenAI and Anthropic.
I use Opus 5.5 for planning, sprinkle in a Fable 5.1 review of the spec (they go back and fourth), then send the spec and plan to my local deepseek 4.1 Flash 1017 to implement. It crunches away for a good while (using ds harness)
Then check w/ Opus and Astra for good measure if it really matters. Works well. DSv4.1 is okay but does make mistakes. I run my 2x DGX sparks at 60-70% capacity this way, which nets about $400/mo worth of tokens on $30 of electricity.
I am hoping in the next six months to be able to in-house ALL of the above using a slightly more competent model, or two more sparks. It is slow running local, but it is really fascinating to have all this work done from my desk.
Have both OpenAI and Anthropic made a fundamental miscalculation here (and a lot of misteps) by targeting the top end of the valuation? Surely can only go down right?
Google's valuation is not based on their AI. Google has a highly profitable ad and cloud business. I don't know why you are putting NVidia in that list. NVidia sells chips and even if AI models become a commodity they need to run on something. Grok - no ones is valuing it at anything close to 1T. Closer to 100M if anything if you add Cursor.
SpaceX valuation is based on their highly profitable Starlink business, highly profitable datacenter build-up and options to charge more for their monopoly in launch. Grok/XAI/Twitter are a small drop in all of it.
Demand for AI is real and increasing. There is real shortage of compute right now. It might be that AI lab is not a sustainable business but I don't see how all that demand evaporates. If anything it will only increase as AI becomes good at more and more tasks.
We always see these headlines and think "is XYZ company actually worth that much?"
Class A stock gets paid out first, so "valuation" here is not what a retail investor would necessarily pay for class C.
Basically, do these people think that they'll get their $11B back? If so, they are ok with a high "valuation" because there is little risk. And with OpenAI's corporate structure, who knows what is actually happening.
OpenAI seems to me like they are operating with a slightly longer horizon strategy than Anthropic. Going for the IPO is the last resort in my mind. It is what you do to get ahead of deteriorating financial conditions. I don't think Anthropic had a choice at their projected burn rate. Why would we surrender all our cloaks and daggers unless we absolutely have to? The political and regulatory headwinds are not looking favorable for AI companies as of a few days ago.
Going for the IPO collapses a large space of options that are available to the business. The AI business is entirely about data. Anthropic's IPO would generate an incredible amount of data that could be used by its competitors to refine their strategy. Knowing where to allocate capital is perhaps worth more than the capital itself at these scales.
> > As OpenAI bides its time, the company is engaging in early stage discussions with investors about a potential new funding round. The company could raise around $30 billion, CNBC previously reported, but that figure could change.
> I predicted last month when they launched Luna that they had raised more funding and I suspect this tidbit dropped to CNBC is just prepping the public for a fundraising that’s already happened. There will probably be an announcement this month.
Billion dollar valuation startups used to be called unicorns because they were mythical creatures that didn’t exist.
Now we have a trillion dollar startup, still raising money, implying that the status quo isn’t remotely their final form.
I understand AI is actually, no-bullshit, changing the world forever, including the global economy. That said, how much of this order of magnitude jump since “unicorn” got coined can be directly attributed to USD inflation?
> Billion dollar valuation startups used to be called unicorns because they were mythical creatures that didn’t exist.
If they didn't exist then you wouldn't need to coin a term to describe them. In reality in the mid 2010s when "unicorn" started being used there were already hundreds of them.
> how much of this order of magnitude jump since “unicorn” got coined can be directly attributed to USD inflation?
"Inflation" is probably not quite the right term, or maybe it implies too broad or too narrow of a phenomenon.
I think we're experiencing the result of decades of taxes being too low on the rich, so there's too much money chasing too little actual real productivity growth. The Buffett indicator keeps ticking higher and higher, because the rich have too much money. It's gotta go somewhere, so everything is turning into tulips.
Yes exactly. There are no world changing inventions left on par w the Industrial Revolution, nitrate fertilizer or modern high productivity grains. The west outsourced production to china and Southeast Asia and will inevitably decline. However much sales talk comes out of sama and Dario et al.
It kinda seems like a lot of the maximalist plans required the rest of the world standing still. As opposed to other governments, companies, other people generally adapting and trying to get a piece for themselves.
Based on the fact that it closed two of my accounts after I reported security issues or bugs directly to OpenAI. I understand that people may have alternative viewpoints or consider me delusional, this is just my personal opinion.
Amazing, UAE is paying protection money. The Iran war pays off for Josh Kushner, who is invested in OpenAI (and already had been "lucky" with the outrageous price that Musk paid for Cursor).
UAE seems to like to diversify into money losing yet culturally relevant investments like man city.
I guess if there's even a 1% chance that sama is right and money will have no value in the future (or that no company besides AI companies will have value), it's worth getting a stake in OpenAi etc at any price, especially if you have more cash than you can possibly use otherwise.
The 'T' in that number is breathtaking. Amusing flashback: remember about a year ago various tech publications claimed OpenAI was destined for bankruptcy since they were bleeding cash. Even funnier, people believed that.
He moved AI into SpaceX and did the IPO when AI was still hot. Great timing.
(Elon Musk merged his artificial intelligence startup xAI into SpaceX in February 2026 and the stock initially traded far above what its earnings, cash flow, and execution risks could support)
I don't like open AI but it seems their model is good now to eat up CAD, a craft I had learned, it's really impressive by now, more impressive than claude with code if you ask me.
131 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 50.7 ms ] threadApple ($4.98T), NVIDIA ($4.51T), Microsoft ($3.94T), Alphabet ($3.49T), Amazon ($2.80T), TSMC ($1.95T), SpaceX ($1.82T), Saudi Aramco ($1.69T), Meta ($1.56T), Tesla ($1.42T), Broadcom ($1.40T), Berkshire Hathaway ($1.22T), Eli Lilly ($1.21T), (Walmart ($0.996T))
16 companies with a market cap as big as the entire US GDP.
Make is make sense when 15 out of those 16 are US companies.
Back in, say, 2006, twenty years ago, there weren't 15 companies adding up to the entirety of the US GDP.
Something simply doesn't add up.
Market cap and GDP are both measured in currency units, I guess they have that in common, not sure I understand the usefulness of this comparison.
They do not care about you.
Their dreams and promises are from the bubble they live in.
Do not worship these men or these companies.
I think Anthropic is worth far less... but it's looking like they may attempt to raise at a valuation betwen 1.1 and 1.2tn.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/running-dry/
They got a bit of pocket change at this insane valuation.
2018 when Apple was first across the threshold, it’s P/E was around 20. Currently near 40.
Then inflation has cut the dollar in half in a bunch of categories. So that would put it at $4T with no growth at all.
Another way to look at it would be to think of this openAI news as announcing they have a $250B valuation if you’re fixated on pre-covid prices like I am. :)
Regardless of what officials say, the only way out of the looming debt crisis in developed nations is to turn on the money printers and inflate the debt away. That's literally the only way out.
Next look at how concentrated inflation gains become in financial assets. Corporate valuations are the first thing to inflate (wages last, and at a much lower rate especially as you move down the income ladder).
Finally recognize that the concentration of wealth in the stock market has made the market itself too big to fail, meaning central bank intervention whenever things get too gruesome. Enter moral hazard at the government backstopped casino.
All of this leads to one conclusion: put all of your money in the stock market. Literally just buy the S&P, ideally a 2x levered S&P index ETF given historical studies of optimal leverage, and just let it ride...
This will also make it even harder to avoid any future IPO being a down round. They’re almost certainly worth much less than Anthropic and Anthropic is, per reports, struggling to keep its valuation much above 1T, and even that may fall through.
Anthropic is way more focused. That helps in a way that builds upon another: their product tends to be better and the people's perception of it as well.
But "much less"? OpenAI needs a month or two of good choices, progress & announcements, and that flips. On the other hand, Deepseek could blow both out of the water unexpectedly, ending the argument about who has the superior tech.
There's also the Elon factor. Anthropic has a good relationship with Elon (to the point where he discounted the compute sold to them by quite a lot) while OpenAI/Sama is the devil to him.
I think arguments for either direction are valid. On one hand, MCPs are essentially APIs used by developers. Developers will demand some form of open reusable standard, "MCP gateways" or hosts will spring up to host them, hyperscaleres will offer them, and ultimately it will be another cloud commodity.
On the other hand, some of the target users of MCPs is the consumer market rather than the developer market. An App Store model makes sense there and the provider/platform can collect the lucrative 30% cut and end consumers’ numbers makes for massive revenue opportunity. This dictates a walled garden "Agent" like Muse or Instant.
If #1 is the direction the market goes in, then more batteries-included solutions like Muse or Hermes become the next obvious step up the chain. If #2 wins, then yes having your MCP available to on a Muse App Store that Meta takes a cut of some sort would be larger.
But they are still not likely to be investment-grade at IPO.
Without them they have best coding/other(e.g. most accountants prefer claude) model on the market, with solid increasing revenue channels and loyal customer base.
Does it mean something or is it a new buzzword. I am seeing this everywhere and the traditional meaning applied to bonds doesn't apply here.
Blackstone think that post-IPO Anthropic will start out with a junk credit rating.
FT seemingly covered it too if you can see it (I can’t):
https://www.ft.com/content/59383c7f-8d82-493f-bf01-d2e862a10...
Their recent "intelligent ui" (forget what they call it), which turns the chat almost into a magazine is amazing for people when they start doing measuring or responses comeback as little graphs or diagrams showing this or that.
Claude is still not able to generate pixel images.
I agree Claude is better for the likes of you and I, but I see the opposite in non-technical people which is most people
Devs and the token-consuming services they create are probably a more valuable market than the entirety of the glorified search engine use cases that the average consumer is focused on
they will easily generate Ads and shopping recommendations revenue challenging Google's 300B/y Ads empire.
Noone will sell them tokens, they will be shepherded into buying stuff (like now with ads, just better).
The alternative are fewer but a lot more high value contracts.
I wonder what came of the Jony Ive acquisition that was supposed to yield a physical product
This is tantamount to saying that the value proposition is unknown, if a supposed trillion dollar company could get upended overnight by a startup
Where's the moat, the unassailable first mover advantage, the enterprise lock intengrations that mean nobody could realistically move you out of the way even if they had slightly better tech ? If none of these exist, investors should be scared.
The Elon association could be a long-term negative.
It certainly didn't help the Republicans in this last election even with Elon donating half a billion dollars to them, and there are reasons to believe that flip on the political side will eventually matter on the business side of things.
Elon's Texas "home base" just flipped blue in a big way.
And unless the winds change significantly in terms of the politics surrounding data centers, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Memphis city council get purged of pro-Colossus members, replaced by anti-data-center candidates when the next elections take place in Oct 2027.
Does anyone see the path to ROI here? There is clearly a profitable business model within these big AI labs, but it’s held captive by messianic 90-page IPO risk statements. I know they want to sell restricted access to the more capable models but the market for those kind of professional services doesn’t even exist yet.
Replacing all work where someone sits exclusivly behind a screen.
They’re raising at $1T, which makes them one of the planet’s largest companies and they’ve only been around for a short time, comparatively.
Yes, there was noise about possibly higher valuations still, but the [edit: private] market definitely thinks there is a $1T business model here.
At the end of the day that’s all that matters
Not sure though. My best guesses about what'll happen to Anthropic have enormous error bars...
Of course I have no idea what the technical results would have been if I had just used Opus 5.5 end-to-end, but I'm fairly confident it would have been more expensive given the rates my company pays for each. For that matter I wonder how Kimi3.1 Pro or DeepSeek 4.1 Flash 1017 would have done with various parts of the job. In fact I may try rerunning the whole thing using open weight models next week just out of curiosity.
If Kimi+DeepSeek produce something roughly equivalent, then just from my own personal experience with a novel problem involving legacy in-house code, as opposed to public benchmarks for which I don't have a great handle on how well they correlate with value produced by the models, that will make me question the valuation of both OpenAI and Anthropic.
Then check w/ Opus and Astra for good measure if it really matters. Works well. DSv4.1 is okay but does make mistakes. I run my 2x DGX sparks at 60-70% capacity this way, which nets about $400/mo worth of tokens on $30 of electricity.
I am hoping in the next six months to be able to in-house ALL of the above using a slightly more competent model, or two more sparks. It is slow running local, but it is really fascinating to have all this work done from my desk.
On 31st Oct, the FT was reporting they’d already cut the funding target from $30bn to $20bn and it looks like the couldn’t get close to that even
https://www.ft.com/content/7a3ad950-1b3b-4d9e-8c15-65a61ae61...
Demand for AI is real and increasing. There is real shortage of compute right now. It might be that AI lab is not a sustainable business but I don't see how all that demand evaporates. If anything it will only increase as AI becomes good at more and more tasks.
Class A stock gets paid out first, so "valuation" here is not what a retail investor would necessarily pay for class C.
Basically, do these people think that they'll get their $11B back? If so, they are ok with a high "valuation" because there is little risk. And with OpenAI's corporate structure, who knows what is actually happening.
Going for the IPO collapses a large space of options that are available to the business. The AI business is entirely about data. Anthropic's IPO would generate an incredible amount of data that could be used by its competitors to refine their strategy. Knowing where to allocate capital is perhaps worth more than the capital itself at these scales.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49117798
> I bet they’ll announce new fundraising soon. Someone gave them a top up to try and corner the market.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50012065
> > As OpenAI bides its time, the company is engaging in early stage discussions with investors about a potential new funding round. The company could raise around $30 billion, CNBC previously reported, but that figure could change.
> I predicted last month when they launched Luna that they had raised more funding and I suspect this tidbit dropped to CNBC is just prepping the public for a fundraising that’s already happened. There will probably be an announcement this month.
Wikipedia article on who suffers the most when speculative bubbles pop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
It's not like mag7 are going away if the bubble does pop. They might even benefit.
Why is it always SoftBank?
Now we have a trillion dollar startup, still raising money, implying that the status quo isn’t remotely their final form.
I understand AI is actually, no-bullshit, changing the world forever, including the global economy. That said, how much of this order of magnitude jump since “unicorn” got coined can be directly attributed to USD inflation?
If they didn't exist then you wouldn't need to coin a term to describe them. In reality in the mid 2010s when "unicorn" started being used there were already hundreds of them.
"Inflation" is probably not quite the right term, or maybe it implies too broad or too narrow of a phenomenon.
I think we're experiencing the result of decades of taxes being too low on the rich, so there's too much money chasing too little actual real productivity growth. The Buffett indicator keeps ticking higher and higher, because the rich have too much money. It's gotta go somewhere, so everything is turning into tulips.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_indicator
https://taonexus.com/sitelist.html
Based on the fact that it closed two of my accounts after I reported security issues or bugs directly to OpenAI. I understand that people may have alternative viewpoints or consider me delusional, this is just my personal opinion.
I also left a comment about it here on this thread https://community.openai.com/t/security-follow-up-tool-call-... and it marked it "ignored" after a few seconds. Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/test-post-zBDLXwX
I don't think any real staff member or well-aligned AI would do that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-05/openai-in...
More investigations need to happen.
I guess if there's even a 1% chance that sama is right and money will have no value in the future (or that no company besides AI companies will have value), it's worth getting a stake in OpenAi etc at any price, especially if you have more cash than you can possibly use otherwise.
(Elon Musk merged his artificial intelligence startup xAI into SpaceX in February 2026 and the stock initially traded far above what its earnings, cash flow, and execution risks could support)