Huh? Sorry, I don't see the confusion.

> Anyway, it doesn't seem like this is "not news".

Given that the number in the headline is based off of a nonsensical apples-to-oranges comparison of revenue figures, I think at a minimum we've got a misleading headline, don't you think?

Also bear in mind that the original $70b number came from an 'anonymous' source to Axios.

The $70b estimate was based on a comparison to Anthropic, which includes revenue from cloud providers. OpenAI does not include this in their numbers.

So, the number did not come from OpenAI. It was an accounting mistake made by some investors and media, who did not adjust for this before reporting on it. I see fintwit calling on FT/Axios to issue a retraction; good luck with that.

It sure is interesting to see the rush to judgement in this thread. Another poster correctly pointed out this mistake (now buried under the sea of misinformed posts trending above it.) The Internet is cooked.

It seems like you chose to immediately disbelieve it.

> until a trustworthy news outlet publishes the text

If you've found one of these, let me know. I'm still looking...

However, Deng also introduced China's 1-child policy (decidedly not capitalism), which is now beginning to seriously strain the system. The future is indeed uncertain.

This prediction may turn out to be true, but why should I believe your prediction over that of anyone else's? Do you have some insider knowledge or expertise that you can share?

Edit: Also, what do you give the odds of your prediction, by severity of outcome? I want to see how the odds you provide stack up against the economic and thus social consequences of under-regulation or over-regulation.

AI is going to be massively deflationary. How useful is UBI when the cost of goods and services approaches zero due to automation?

With that said, I can imagine the federal reserve will then helicopter in money to everyone in order to reach its 2% inflation target, which kinda sounds like UBI.