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.
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.
Developer sentiment seems to be awarding Anthropic on quality and efficiency with more usage (plus Claude Code CLI being earlier to market), although maybe OpenAI is in bed with enough non-coding enterprises that it has an edge there.
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.
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.
Less sarcastically though the bet on how much AI company IPO at attracts a certain type of people. People who may have a certain believe about AI companies which will bias their assumptions quite a bit.
I mean unless you think the valuation multiple on AI companies have compressed by over 50% in the past week, the prediction markets seem pretty accurate.
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.
Issue is the deteriorating market conditions are already happening, Anthropic didn’t really get ahead of them, but they might just about be able to get the IPO over the line this year albeit for less than they hoped.
What OpenAI will do if market sentiment around AI really falls apart I’m not sure
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.
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).
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.
It is pretty much all inflation. Just look at the gold price over the same time frame. Gold did not become more productive or scarce. In fact, we have more of it now than we ever had.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sam raised a $100B in previous round. I think a direct listing ipo would see their valuation go up to $4T, and then they could do some at the market sales as needed.
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.
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" came about there were already hundreds of tech "unicorns".
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.
> > 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.
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.
It still baffles me that Grok is even on the list let alone being funded. Their market share is terrible and the product is so mediocre. Why on earth would I want a tool that has “be funny and irreverent” baked into its system prompts? I don’t want a calculator cracking wise at me either.
- cursor is good and covers many different use cases (multimodel "agents window", ai assistant in the editor chat, tab completion, cloud agents, ai code & security reviews)
- grok bot was first to market as "openclaw for enterprises" and feel they really pioneered this UX
- grok models are so-so but 4.6 had a great bang for the buck; they may still return to the "pareto frontier" for coding given all the data that cursor has
also the valuation is not only on grok/cursor? also spacex (starling, currently cheapest deliver to orbit; future "data center in space")
actually for an ai company i think they are quite well diversified and have multiple things going on for them; are they worth $1T --> i don't know, but i see a way to them doing really good (will they? on average, probably not, but at least it imaginable)
Grok had the potential of being the #1 LLM if they actually went through with Elons original promise of an "uncensored model". Meaning no guardrails, it does what you tell it, no matter what. Sadly Grok is even more restricted than even OpenAI's models, and despite being marketed as "edgy and ruthless" it is THE MOST politically correct model on the market. ChatGPT or Claude will gladly go along with religious or nationality based roleplay, while Grok outright refuses. Oh and you can't even use it for any pentesting whatsoever because a) it's far worse than the competition b) it completely refuses to even LOOK at low level code.
But this goes along with Elons same promises for X; "X will support free speech" etc even though it's trivial to get banned for the most pointless things.
> if they actually went through with Elons original promise of an "uncensored model". Meaning no guardrails, it does what you tell it, no matter what.
When will HNers realize that this is a fever dream? This is an edgy teenager's interpretation of "good".
The second someone uses a frontier model to attack other entities or hurt innocent people it will get (rightfully) shut down by the government.
We already saw this with the Fable export controls (and no one had even used these models offensively).
Open models will reach the same fate once the gov't realizes they are good enough. They will just ban weight hosting, require safeguards for any model routers that accept US payment, and embargo anyone that doesn't do these things.
There is a reason we don't let everyone in the world own RPGs.
No company will be able to get away with offering a completely unconstrained commercial model. The legal risk and pushback from governments is too high.
The SpaceX/xAI valuation is crazy. Their rockets and satellite tech (i.e. SpaceX proper) is cool, but not worth anywhere near $1T. And in the AI space their tech doesn't feel competitive with Antropic/OpenAI. Not really better than the open Chinese models.
What's its USP? Data centers in space that governments can't shut down without triggering Kessler syndrome?
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.
How could anything else be bigger than Super Intelligence? Which is supposed to be the next step after AGI, which we presumably already have?
I'm tired boss...
What makes you say this?
But Anthropic might not actually be worth more that much more than OpenAI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50394906
Unless things change considerably, this is less than a 6 month runway.
It's not common for raises to give you this little runway.
You could read into it that they expect to IPO in far less than that amount of time, and this is a short bridge until then.
Less sarcastically though the bet on how much AI company IPO at attracts a certain type of people. People who may have a certain believe about AI companies which will bias their assumptions quite a bit.
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.
What OpenAI will do if market sentiment around AI really falls apart I’m not sure
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.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-10-05/openai-in...
More investigations need to happen.
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. :)
But then again 1T today is 700b back in 2018. It's like 6 figures salaries, they don't hit like they used to.
Apple ($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.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/running-dry/
They got a bit of pocket change at this insane valuation.
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" came about there were already hundreds of tech "unicorns".
Wikipedia article on who suffers the most when speculative bubbles pop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
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://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.
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.
also the valuation is not only on grok/cursor? also spacex (starling, currently cheapest deliver to orbit; future "data center in space")
actually for an ai company i think they are quite well diversified and have multiple things going on for them; are they worth $1T --> i don't know, but i see a way to them doing really good (will they? on average, probably not, but at least it imaginable)
But this goes along with Elons same promises for X; "X will support free speech" etc even though it's trivial to get banned for the most pointless things.
When will HNers realize that this is a fever dream? This is an edgy teenager's interpretation of "good".
The second someone uses a frontier model to attack other entities or hurt innocent people it will get (rightfully) shut down by the government.
We already saw this with the Fable export controls (and no one had even used these models offensively).
Open models will reach the same fate once the gov't realizes they are good enough. They will just ban weight hosting, require safeguards for any model routers that accept US payment, and embargo anyone that doesn't do these things.
There is a reason we don't let everyone in the world own RPGs.
What's its USP? Data centers in space that governments can't shut down without triggering Kessler syndrome?
It's become a huge community of people who have their life savings in Elon, and endlessly circle jerk the hype.