upvote
It's well know everyone is making great money on inference. The cost is training.

Whether GPT-5 was profitable to run depends on which profit margin you’re talking about. If we subtract the cost of compute from revenue to calculate the gross margin (on an accounting basis),2 it seems to be about 30% — lower than the norm for software companies (where 60-80% is typical) but still higher than many industries.

(They go on to point out that there are other costs that might mean they didn't break even on other costs - although I suspect these costs should be partially amortized over the whole GPT 5.x series, not just 5.0)

https://epochai.substack.com/p/can-ai-companies-become-profi...

https://martinalderson.com/posts/are-openai-and-anthropic-re... (with math working backwards from GPU capacity)

"Most of what we're building out at this point is the inference [...] We're profitable on inference. If we didn't pay for training, we'd be a very profitable company"

https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/17/sam-altman/

"There’s a bright spot, however. OpenAI has gotten more efficient at serving paying users: Its compute margin—the revenue left after subtracting the cost of running AI models for those customers—was roughly 70% in October, an increase from about 52% at the end of last year and roughly 35% in January 2024."

https://archive.is/OqIny#selection-1279.0-1279.305 (Note this is after having to pay higher spot rates for compute because of higher than expected demand)

reply
> It's well know everyone is making great money on inference.

That is not, in fact, "well known", but based entirely on the announcements of the inference providers themselves who also get very cagey when asked to show their work and at least look like they're soliciting a constant firehose of investment money simply to keep the lights on. In particular there's a troubling tendency to call revenue "recurring" before it actually, you know, recurs.

reply
> based entirely on the announcements of the inference providers themselves who also get very cagey when asked to show their work

I mean sure, it's self reported.

But the inference prices somewhere like Fireworks or TogetherAI charges is comparable to what Google/AWS/Azure charge for the same model an we know they aren't losing money - they have public accounts that show it, eg:

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-resets-amazon-...

Fireworks’ gross margin—gross profit as a percentage of revenue—is roughly 50%, according to the same person

https://archive.is/Y26lA#selection-1249.65-1249.173

> In particular there's a troubling tendency to call revenue "recurring" before it actually, you know, recurs.

If someone has a subscription then yes that is pretty normal.

reply
> If someone has a subscription then yes that is pretty normal.

Not if you've substantively changed rate limits 3 times in the last 5 months while still counting those forecast revenues. In most industries that's called rug-pulling.

reply
It doesn’t matter how you call it. A recurring subscription on the books is a recurring subscription. Yes you can cancel anytime (how generous of them), it also doesn’t matter.
reply