OpenAI Is Just Another Boring, Desperate AI Startup

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Article format & tone

  • Many found the “40 minute read” label misleading given the early paywall; numerous complaints about intrusive subscribe pop‑ups and CTAs.
  • Several readers say they broadly agree with the author’s concerns but criticize the delivery as melodramatic, repetitive, and “performative contrarian,” making nuanced engagement harder.
  • Others dismiss the piece as ragebait or clickbait targeted at AI “doomers,” noting that the author has been writing near-identical anti‑AI posts for years.

Usefulness and capabilities of OpenAI models

  • Strong split: some describe GPT‑5 and related models as “duds” or only incremental vs hype; others say GPT‑5/o3 are a huge improvement for coding and complex tasks, with dramatic gains in refactoring and reasoning.
  • Sora 2 is cited as evidence that OpenAI is still pushing the frontier (videos “unimaginable” months ago), while skeptics call this output “boring creepy slop” with unclear business value.
  • Several note that models are still fragile on everyday tasks (e.g., simple unit conversions) despite benchmark wins.

Financials, profitability, and business model

  • Reported numbers discussed: ~$4.5B revenue in H1 2025, but far larger losses (various figures up to tens of billions annually); many see this as “giving away dollar bills for a nickel.”
  • One camp argues each major model is individually profitable if you amortize training over its useful life and assume high inference margins; critics call this “voodoo economics,” noting huge ongoing R&D and serving costs.
  • Debate over ambitious projections (~$100B+ revenue by 2029): some see them as plausible given low current monetization (no ads, modest pricing), others as bubble talk resembling MoviePass/Uber‑at‑$1 rides.

Moat, competition, and user stickiness

  • Pro‑OpenAI side emphasizes 700–800M active users, strong consumer brand (“ChatGPT is AI”), and product features (agents, research modes, tooling) as real moats.
  • Skeptics argue switching costs are low, open‑weight and cheaper competitors are rapidly catching up, and free users are not sticky; paid users are a small fraction of the base.
  • Long debate over whether “brand moat” is meaningful for a purely online, easily substitutable service.

Hype, AGI, and “religious” thinking

  • Some accuse AI boosters of cult‑like, quasi‑religious belief in AGI (“Second Coming” analogies); they see current systems as powerful tools, not steps toward godlike intelligence.
  • Others insist emergent capabilities and our poor understanding of model internals justify viewing this as unlike past tech cycles (“this time it’s different”) and not just “a really good tool.”
  • Several commenters explicitly separate technical impressiveness from economic soundness: AI can transform workflows yet still be a bad or overvalued business.

Perceptions of the article and AI skepticism

  • Supporters praise the focus on unsustainable economics, opaque financing, and media’s lack of scrutiny of AI losses.
  • Critics say the piece overstates its case, ignores non‑public investor information, and relies on errors or extreme interpretations to paint OpenAI as doomed.
  • Some meta‑discussion notes HN’s polarization: posts critical of AI either get heavily flagged or fiercely defended, with few genuinely neutral takes.