[alonsonic]

I'm confused with your second point. LLM companies are not making any money from current models? Openai generates 10b USD ARR and has 100M MAUs. Yes they are running at a loss right now but that's because they are racing to improve models. If they stopped today to focus on optimization of their current models to minimize operating cost and monetizing their massive user base you think they don't have a successful business model? People use this tools daily, this is inevitable.

[dbalatero]

They might generate 10b ARR, but they lose a lot more than that. Their paid users are a fraction of the free riders.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/openai-is-a-systemic-risk-to-the...

[Centigonal]

This echoes a lot of the rhetoric around "but how will facebook/twitter/etc make money?" back in the mid 2000s. LLMs might shake out differently from the social web, but I don't think that speculating about the flexibility of demand curves is a particularly useful exercise in an industry where the marginal cost of inference capacity is measured in microcents per token. Plus, the question at hand is "will LLMs be relevant?" and not "will LLMs be massively profitable to model providers?"

[Cthulhu_]

That's fixable, a gradual adjusting of the free tier will happen soon enough once they stop pumping money into it. Part of this is also a war of attrition though, who has the most money to keep a free tier the longest and attract the most people. Very familiar strategy for companies trying to gain market share.

[jahewson]

Then cut off the free riders. Problem solved overnight.

[lordnacho]

Are you saying they'd be profitable if they didn't pour all the winnings into research?

From where I'm standing, the models are useful as is. If Claude stopped improving today, I would still find use for it. Well worth 4 figures a year IMO.

[jsnell]

They'd be profitable if they showed ads to their free tier users. They wouldn't even need to be particularly competent at targeting or aggressive with the amount of ads they show, they'd be profitable with 1/10th the ARPU of Meta or Google.

And they would not be incompetent at targeting. If they were to use the chat history for targeting, they might have the most valuable ad targeting data sets ever built.

[vikramkr]

That's calculating value against not having LLMs and current competitors. If they stopped improving but their competitors didn't, then the question would be the incremental cost of Claude (financial, adjusted for switching costs, etc) against the incremental advantage against the next best competitor that did continue improving. Lock in is going to be hard to accomplish around a product that has success defined by its generalizability and adaptability.

Basically, they can stop investing in research either when 1) the tech matures and everyone is out of ideas or 2) they have monopoly power from either market power or oracle style enterprise lock in or something. Otherwise they'll fall behind and you won't have any reason to pay for it anymore. Fun thing about "perfect" competition is that everyone competes their profits to zero

[miki123211]

But if Claude stopped pouring their money into research and others didn't, Claude wouldn't be useful a year from now, as you could get a better model for the same price.

This is why AI companies must lose money short term. The moment improvements plateau or the economic environment changes, everyone will cut back on research.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

For me, if Anthropic stopped now, and given access to all alternative models, they still would be worth exactly $240 which is the amount I'm paying now. I guess Anthropic and OpenAI can see the real demand by clearly seeing what are their free:basic:expensive plan ratios.

[apwell23]

> Well worth 4 figures a year IMO

only because software engineering pay hasn't adjusted down for the new reality . You don't know what its worth yet.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> If they stopped today to focus on optimization of their current models to minimize operating cost and monetizing their user base you think they don't have a successful business model?

Actually, I'd be very curious to know this. Because we already have a few relatively capable models that I can run on my MBP with 128 GB of RAM (and a few less capable models I can run much faster on my 5090).

In order to break even they would have to minimize the operating costs (by throttling, maiming models etc.) and/or increase prices. This would be the reality check.

But the cynic in me feels they prefer to avoid this reality check and use the tried and tested Uber model of permanent money influx with the "profitability is just around the corner" justification but at an even bigger scale.

[ghc]

> In order to break even they would have to minimize the operating costs (by throttling, maiming models etc.) and/or increase prices. This would be the reality check.

Is that true? Are they operating inference at a loss or are they incurring losses entirely on R&D? I guess we'll probably never know, but I wouldn't take as a given that inference is operating at a loss.

I found this: https://semianalysis.com/2023/02/09/the-inference-cost-of-se...

which estimates that it costs $250M/year to operate ChatGPT. If even remotely true $10B in revenue on $250M of COGS would be a great business.

[ehutch79]

Revenue is _NOT_ Profit

[throwawayoldie]

And ARR is not revenue. It's "annualized recurring revenue": take one month's worth of revenue, multiply it by 12--and you get to pick which month makes the figures look most impressive.

[vuggamie]

It's a good point. Any business can get revenue by selling Twenty dollar bills for $19. But in the history of tech, many winners have been dismissed for lack of an apparent business model. Amazon went years losing money, and when the business stabilized, went years re-investing and never showed a profit. Analysts complained as Amazon expanded into non-retail activities. And then there's Uber.

The money is there. Investors believe this is the next big thing, and is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Bigger than the social media boom which made a bunch of billionaires, bigger than the dot com boom, bigger maybe than the invention of the microchip itself.

It's going to be years before any of these companies care about profit. Ad revenue is unlikely to fund the engineering and research they need. So the only question is, does the investor money dry up? I don't think so. Investor money will be chasing AGI until we get it or there's another AI winter.

[dkdbejwi383]

How many of those MAUs are crappy startups building a janky layer on top of the OpenAI API which will cease to exist in 2 years?

[reasonableklout]

Last year, ChatGPT was 75% of OpenAI's revenue[1], not the API.

[1]: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/chatgpt-statistics/

[Forgeties79]

> that's because they are racing improve models. If they stopped today to focus on optimization of their current models to minimize operating cost and monetizing their user base you think they don't have a successful business model?

I imagine they would’ve flicked that switch if they thought it would generate a profit, but as it is it seems like all AI companies are still happy to burn investor money trying to improve their models while I guess waiting for everyone else to stop first.

I also imagine it’s hard to go to investors with “while all of our competitors are improving their models and either closing the gap or surpassing us, we’re just going to stabilize and see if people will pay for our current product.”

[thewebguyd]

> I also imagine it’s hard to go to investors with “while all of our competitors are improving their models and either closing the gap or surpassing us, we’re just going to stabilize and see if people will pay for our current product.”

Yeah, no one wants to be the first to stop improving models. As long as investor money keeps flowing in there's no reason to - just keep burning it and try to outlast your competitors, figure out the business model later. We'll only start to see heavy monetization once the money dries up, if it ever does.

[bbor]

It’s just the natural counterpart to dogmatic inevitabilism — dogmatic denialism. One denies the present, the other the (recent) past. It’s honestly an understandable PoV though when you consider A) most people understand “AI” and “chatbot” to be synonyms, and B) the blockchain hype cycle(s) bred some deep cynicism about software innovation.

Funny seeing that comment on this post in particular, tho. When OP says “I’m not sure it’s a world I want”, I really don’t think they’re thinking about corporate revenue opportunities… More like Rehoboam, if not Skynet.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> most people understand “AI” and “chatbot” to be synonyms

This might be true (or not), but for sure not on this site.

[mc32]

Making money and operating at a loss contradict each other. Maybe someday they’ll make money —but not just yet. As many have said they’re hoping capturing market will position them nicely once things settle. Obviously we’re not there yet.

[colinmorelli]

It is absolutely possible for the unit economics of a product to be profitable and for the parent company to be losing money. In fact, it's extremely common when the company is bullish on their own future and thus they invest heavily in marketing and R&D to continue their growth. This is what I understood GP to mean.

Whether it's true for any of the mainstream LLM companies or not is anyone's guess, since their financials are either private or don't separate out LLM inference as a line item.

[airstrike]

No, because if they stop to focus on optimizing and minimizing operating costs, the next competitor over will leapfrog them with a better model in 6-12 months, making all those margin improvements an NPV negative endeavor.

[827a]

One thing we're seeing in the software engineering agent space right now is how many people are angry with Cursor [1], and now Claude Code [2] (just picked a couple examples; you can browse around these subreddits and see tons of complaints).

What's happening here is pretty clear to me: Its a form of enshittification. These companies are struggling to find a price point that supports both broad market adoption ($20? $30?) and the intelligence/scale to deliver good results ($200? $300?). So, they're nerfing cheap plans, prioritizing expensive ones, and pissing off customers in the process. Cursor even had to apologize for it [3].

There's a broad sense in the LLM industry right now that if we can't get to "it" (AGI, etc) by the end of this decade, it won't happen during this "AI Summer". The reason for that is two-fold: Intelligence scaling is logarithmic w.r.t compute. We simply cannot scale compute quick enough. And, interest in funding to pay for that exponential compute need will dry up, and previous super-cycles tell us that will happen on the order of ~5 years.

So here's my thesis: We have a deadline that even evangelists agree is a deadline. I would argue that we're further along in this supercycle than many people realize, because these companies have already reached the early enshitification phase for some niche use-cases (software development). We're also seeing Grok 4 Heavy release with a 50% price increase ($300/mo) yet offer single-digit percent improvement in capability. This is hallmark enshitification.

Enshitification is the final, terminal phase of hyperscale technology companies. Companies remain in that phase potentially forever, but its not a phase where significant research, innovation, and optimization can happen; instead, it is a phase of extraction. AI hyperscalers genuinely speedran this cycle thanks to their incredible funding and costs; but they're now showcasing very early signals of enshitifications.

(Google might actually escape this enshitification supercycle, to be clear, and that's why I'm so bullish on them and them alone. Their deep, multi-decade investment into TPUs, Cloud Infra, and high margin product deployments of AI might help them escape it).

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1m0i6o3/cursor_qual...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1lzuy0j/claude_co...

[3] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/07/cursor-apologizes-for-uncl...