Altman

Anthropic has moved ahead of OpenAI in its race to go public. This is very bad news for Sam Altman

by

Anthropic confirmed on Monday which has formally registered its application for its long-awaited IPO. The operation may become the largest in the history of its type, and reminds us of another singular moment. In August 1995, Netscape went public and marked the beginning of the era of the Internet and dotcom fever. That turned out to be a bubble, but “good”. The question is if it will be repeated what happened then. The original Netscape moment. When Netscape went public, the company had only been on the market for 16 months and had not made a profit in all that time. It didn’t matter. The shares went on the market on August 9, 1995 with an initial price of $28. On its first day of trading, the value skyrocketed quicklyreaching a high of $75 before closing at $58.25. In December of that year it would reach its maximum value, $171 per share. The rest, as they say, it’s history. Netscape’s IPO sent the Nasdaq technology index soaring… until the dot-com bubble hit in 2000. Source: Reuters. Anthropic could break all records. Anthropic’s spectacular growth in recent months has made the company in the pretty girl of the AI ​​sector. The recent investment round has raised its valuation to $965 billionan incredible figure considering that the company is barely five years old. It has also overtaken OpenAI, whose valuation It is currently around $850 billion.. Both were moving to go public this year, but Anthropic has gone ahead again, something that at first glance seems like another victory against its main rival. What Netscape taught us. The explosion of Netscape in 1995 gave rise to fierce competition: companies promising gold and moro did not stop appearing, and the dotcom bubble grew. Too many companies managed to attract investment without a clear business plan and the situation ended up leading to the bursting of the bubble. A few companies survived and managed to become the great giants of today’s technology. good bubbles. That bubble could be described as “good” because although many companies failed, those that remained and those that were created later ended up leading this revolution called the internet. For many, the AI ​​bubble exists, but it is similar to the dotcom bubble in that: many companies could disappear if it bursts, but the final result, they say, will be positive for the evolution of our planet. But Anthropic is very different from Netscape. Although these IPOs present certain analogies, the situation of these companies is very different. Netscape suffered greatly to monetize its software and would end up in the hands of AOL in 1999 when its stage was closing. Anthropic has shown that its approach to businesses works, and in fact this past quarter it surprised by achieving profits (with small print) when everyone expected losses. And still, total uncertainty. Anthropic’s projection—like that of OpenAI—is spectacular on paper, but we are talking about companies that in recent years have not stopped burning money to achieve the most powerful models on the market. All technology companies have been devoured by the AI ​​fever, but today the only ones who win (a lot) money are those that provide components for AI infrastructure. Milestone. The bet is that this infrastructure will be necessary because we will all use AI models on a massive scale, but it is not at all clear that this expectation will be met. It may not, but Anthropic’s IPO will certainly mark a milestone in the dizzying growth of this segment. And victory for Amodei. This year we will likely see three historic IPOs. SpaceX seems to be the first in breaking records, but both Anthropic and OpenAI follow in their footsteps. That the company led by Dario Amodei has formally confirmed its preparation for that exit is a symbolic victory against its great rival, Sam Altman, who is also planning the IPO of OpenAI. In recent months Anthropic has managed to turn the tables, and has gone from being the pursuer to the leader of a race that certainly is not over yet. Image | Wikimedia In Xataka | Anthropic is one step away from being worth as much as Samsung. And what the market is buying is not Claude

The trial against Sam Altman seemed like a duel between two millionaires. It has ended up uncovering the ins and outs of OpenAI

by

Three weeks of testimonies, 78 messages between Sam Altman and Mira Murati during the night they were going to kill him as CEOemails where Greg Brockman wrote in his personal diary how nice it would be to “earn billions” and Satya Nadella describing the OpenAI board as ““amateur city”. This Thursday the final arguments of the Musk vs. Altman trial were held in a federal court in Oakland. The lawsuit asked for 150,000 million in damages and the dismissal of Altman. What has been left for the public has not so much to do with the verdict. Why is it important. OpenAI is, despite its name, one of the most secretive companies in Silicon Valley. Its internal functioning, until now, was known through highly selected profiles in The New Yorker or specific leaks. The trial has forced the company to publish emails, text messages, personal diaries and depositions that depict an organization very different from the one that sells its official communication. A company plagued by power struggles, mutual suspicions between founders and a board that in 2023 could not explain why it fired its own CEO. behind the scenes. The most illuminating episode occurred not on the stand, but in a chain of late-night messages between Altman and Murati during “The Blip“, the weekend of November 2023 in which the board removed the CEO. At 2:30 a.m. Monday morning, Altman was asking his then-CTO if things were going well or badly. “This is going in a very bad direction. Sam, this is very serious,” Murati responded. Minutes later, Altman offered to leave to avoid lawsuits. Murati replied that the council already had a replacement: “uncle random of Twitch”, in reference to Emmett Shear. That same day, Murati signed the first of the letters from employees asking for Altman’s return. The contrast. What Murati’s deposition leaked is that she herself had fed the board with complaints about Altman before the firing. Helen Toner, a former councillor, testified that Murati and co-founder Ilya Sutskever had conveyed to the council a pattern of behavior about Altman’s honesty. Sutskever wrote a 52-page memorandum. On the stand, Sutskever himself confirmed writing to the board that Altman “demonstrates a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his executives, and pitting them against each other.” Murati, in his deposition, maintained his criticisms but framed them as “purely managerial.” Go deeper. The term that the Microsoft leadership used to describe what they saw in those days was said by Satya Nadella from the stand: ‘amateur city. The CEO of Microsoft, the main investor in OpenAI with more than 13 billion contributed, said that he never received a concrete explanation of why Altman was fired. “I was very concerned that employees would leave en masse,” he said. Nadella offered Altman a position at Microsoft with an open invitation to the entire OpenAI team. Altman admitted at trial that he was on the verge of accepting: “I would have made a lot of money and had a much easier life at Microsoft.” He ended up coming back to OpenAI with some new advice. The outgoing board’s accusation was that Altman “had not been consistently candid” with them. The money trail. The trial has also exposed Altman’s web of personal interests in companies that do business with OpenAI. While under interrogation, Altman acknowledged stakes worth more than $2 billion in companies such as Helion Energy, Cerebras –just went public–, Reddit or Stripe. His third of Helion (from which he has just left as president) is valued at 1,650 million. OpenAI has signed a framework agreement with Helion for future energy supplies. Forbes has recalculated his assets at more than 4,000 million after these revelations. Brockman, who according to Musk “did not invest a cent”, now appears with a stake valued at 30 billion. Yes, but. None of this changes the legal background. The jury must decide on two specific civil claims: breach of fiduciary trust and unjust enrichment. Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, has tried to turn this into a trial about Altman’s credibility. In his closing arguments he put an unflattering photo of the CEO on screen and asked the jury to imagine a bridge over a ravine “built on Sam Altman’s version of the truth.” And now what. OpenAI has been preparing for a long time an IPO that could value it at close to a billion dollars. Musk, meanwhile, flew to China with Trump despite the judicial warning that he could be called to testify again. Regardless of the ruling, the reputational damage has already been done. The narrative that OpenAI has tried to project for years (that of being an idealistic laboratory guided by the mission of benefiting humanity) now coexists with another version documented in a judicial process: that of a company where the co-founder sends messages to the CEO at two in the morning to tell him that it is finished and a few hours later she signs the letter asking for her return. A company where the president wrote in his diary that “it would be nice to earn billions.” And where the reference investor, seeing the chaos from the outside, called ‘amateur city to its governing bodies. The jury’s verdict will come next week. What can no longer be archived are the documents. In Xataka | There is a thing called “Ornn price index”, it is out of control and it is bad news for everyone Featured image | Xataka

All the founders of OpenAI have become billionaires with ChatGPT. Everyone except Sam Altman, who has no shares

by

Sam Altman is the most recognizable face of the AI ​​industry in the world. He directs OpenAI, the company that created ChatGPT and is today valued at 852,000 million of dollars. However, a leaked document during the ongoing trial between Altman and Elon Musk Due to the change in status from an NGO to a for-profit entity, it has revealed who the true investors of OpenAI are and how much their participation in the company amounts to. In the box next to his name, only three letters appear: TBD, which in English means “to be determined.” The man who leads the biggest technological revolution in recent years does not own a single share of his own company. Sam Altman works for the love of art. OpenAI was born in 2015 as non-profit organization with an ambitious mission: to develop AI safely and for the good of humanity. That Altman did not take stock then made some sense since his role was presented as the neutral guardian, the leader whose decisions were not tainted by money. A noble mission, without a doubt. But that It is not the scenario in 2026. In 2019, OpenAI’s charity structure began to become too small to compete in the AI ​​race. OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary under the so-called “capped-profit” model, in which investors they could make profits limited. That opened the door for capital and also for executives and co-founders to secure huge stakes in OpenAI. Altman’s name, paradoxically, remained blank. Those who did get rich, and a lot. As and how I collected Forbes, Greg Brockman, co-founder and former president of OpenAI, admitted during the trial that he owns a stake worth about $30 billion for which he paid nothing. Ilya Sutskever, former scientific director, has a participation between 30,000 and 35,000 million dollars. Figures very far from the annual compensation of $76,001 that its CEO receives, according to the tax form from OpenAI. The other major beneficiary is the Sound Ventures fund, linked to actor Ashton Kutcherinvested 30 million dollars in an early phase and that bet is now worth 1.3 billion, a return of 43 times the investment. In total, current and former employees control about $165 billion in company shares. The distribution among the greats. The block of corporate investors formed by Microsoft, SoftBank, Amazon and NVIDIA, together control 46.58% of OpenAI, with a stake valued at $396.9 billion against a combined investment of $122.7 billion. Microsoft leads that group with 26.79% of the company, a position valued at $228.3 billion built from an initial investment of 13,000 million. SoftBank occupies second place with 11.66% of OpenAI, valued at 99.3 billion compared to an initial payment of 64.6 billion, which represents a profitability of 1.5 times. amazon It has 4.66% of the company, valued at 39.7 billion dollars with an investment of 15 billion and a profitability of 2.6 times. At the top of the table is the OpenAI Foundation, the original non-profit entity, with 25.80% of the company and a stake valued at $219.8 billion which, having been formed with contributions without financial compensation, technically has an infinite return. Here may lie the key to the mystery of Altman’s retribution. A calculated move. The most widespread theory is that Altman and the board of directors, which he has firmly controlled since surviving the 2023 impeachment attempt, They are simply biding their time. Once the dispute with Musk concludes, the OpenAI board is likely to retroactively determine that Altman deserves participation commensurate with his responsibility. It is likely that, as is the case with other CEOs, This remuneration is linked to milestones like taking the company public with a valuation of more than a billion dollars. Perhaps this retribution will arise from that reserved fund now controlled by the OpenAI Foundation. Meanwhile, Altman is not exactly in trouble and your personal assets exceeds 2 billion dollars thanks to investments in companies that, curiously, are very well positioned to benefit from the growth of OpenAI. Without being a shareholder in his own company, he has built a personal business ecosystem that prospers directly thanks to his success. In Xataka | “The problem is Sam Altman”: more and more voices within the AI ​​industry are beginning to question the CEO of OpenAI Image | Flikr (TechCrunch)

Sam Altman attacked Anthropic for using fear tactics with their new AI. He then did exactly the same thing.

by

The big AI companies have set themselves a goal: practically every week They must present a new model or start warming up the atmosphere by commenting on what is to come. Delays are not tolerated because the speed at which everything happens is overwhelming, but those who continue to dominate the conversation in terms of the power of their models are OpenAI and Anthropic. And what had to happen has happened: if Anthropic has a new “dangerous” model, now OpenAI says they also have one. And it is a example very clear of “where I said I say, I say Diego.” GPT-5.5 Cyber. A few days ago, OpenAI released GPT-5.5 Cyber. This is a variant of GPT-5.5 focused and specialized in advanced cybersecurity capabilities. It is a model focused on tasks such as the exploitation of vulnerabilities, penetration tests, malware reverse engineering and other types of actions highly focused on that sector of computer security. In a reality in which, thanks to AI tools, there are systems that are more vulnerable than ever (and all this when we are on the threshold of the era of post-quantum cryptography), such specialized models seem like a very sweet tool for companies. But, of course, also for someone with other intentions. Access control. Due to concerns over potential dual use, OpenAI has made the decision to restrict access to GPT-5.5 Cyber ​​to “critical cyber defenders.” Who are these? Those that protect essential infrastructure such as electrical or financial networks. OpenAI has a certified access program with robust safeguards and rejection of malicious requests so that not everyone has access to this tool. In addition, they have a monitoring system to detect suspicious activity carried out by the model. With cannon shots. It is, in essence, the discourse of fear. Once again, an artificial intelligence company saying that they have a product so powerful that it cannot fall into the hands of just anyone. It’s not the first time that OpenAI uses this speech, but the times have been very curious. A few days ago, Anthropic presented Mythos. It is a tool very similar to that of OpenAI, one that is already giving some results in companies, with examples like Mozilla pointing out that, thanks to Mythos, the latest version of Firefox has a lot of security patches because AI has greatly streamlined the processes for finding vulnerabilities. It is one more example of the two titans of the AI ​​industry captaining ships with enormous firepower and “shooting” their best product with that speech of fear. Precisely, that’s where the problem lies. The hypocrisy. After the presentation of Cyber, Sam Altman commented at X that they were working with the Government to establish trusted access control to their tool. They have not shared the identities of those who will have initial access or, really, many details of the model. It has simply been a “oops, oops, this is very powerful and we can’t release it to the general public.” And, as we say, the problem is that Sam Altman himself harshly criticized Anthropic’s strategy when Mythos was presented. The CEO spoke about the strategy of fear and compared the maneuver of Anthropic and its declared enemy, Dario Amodei, with that of someone who manufactures an atomic bomb and, at the same time, sells you the bunker to protect you from it. This has not been overlooked by the media because he harshly criticized that strategy just before copying it word for word. At par. Despite everything, neither one nor the other is wrong. When AI companies present a model, curiously it is always better than the competition in almost everything. On this occasion, a assessment The UK AI Security Institute reflects that both Mythos and GPT-5.5 Cyber ​​are two of the most powerful models they have analyzed in their cybersecurity tests and that they are, basically, on par. Compared to previous or non-specific models, the difference is palpable. In expert-level tasks, GPT-5.5 achieved an average success rate of 71.4% compared to 52.4% for GPT-5.4. Mythos Preview, for its part, stayed at 68.6% compared to 48.6% for Opus 4.7. The Institute concludes by pointing out that this is evidence that the potential in cybersecurity is a trend among frontier models, one in which they can begin to achieve the desired benefits in order to become listed companies. Another reading is that countries that want to stop depending on cutting-edge American technology must start getting their act together as soon as possible. And that is, precisely, the message from the CEO of Mistral, the French AI company that recently pointed out that Europe had to stop being a technological vassal of the United States to become a power. In Xataka | Someone has had a simple idea so that data centers do not collapse in Spain: “unplug them” 18 days a year

Sam Altman has had another great idea to finally charge the user all the money he needs: a receipt at the end of the month

by

We are used to pay the electricity bill or water because they have become basic and totally universal goods. Well, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, is clear that artificial intelligence will be exactly that: a commoditya basic and totally universal good. This implies, of course, that there will come a time when, just as we pay the electricity or water bill, we will pay the monthly AI bill. Paying for AI will be an everyday thing. Altman recently participated in an event in Washington DC and there raised an idea that has been around for a long time but is certainly gaining more and more strength: that AI will offer like electricity or water, on demand: as soon as you need it, it will be there for you. That, of course, will mean that just as we now pay for our electricity or water use, we will also pay for the AI ​​supply that we use. And we will do it at the end of the month with the traditional method: an invoice from our supplier. In Xataka The most powerful AI agent in the world has just arrived: the first thing it does is warn you that it is dangerous From consuming kW to consuming tokens. Thus, instead of paying fixed subscriptions as we usually do now when contracting ChatGPT Plus or Claude Pro, for example, what we will do is pay that monthly bill. The amount we will pay will be based on how many “tokens“(processing units) we have consumed to solve all types of tasks. We have power plants, we will have data centers. To Altman this speech fits like a glovebecause it justifies its AI data center megaprojects —and those of the rest of the industry—. If AI is to become that universal basic resource, we will have to have the infrastructure (the “AI power plants”) to sustain it. Without such infrastructure, Altman warns, the price of “intelligence” will skyrocket, turning it into an exclusive privilege for the richest or a resource rationed by governments. Compute Yottaflops. That race for infrastructure has already begun, and big technology companies are fueling it. The reason is simple: either they enter that maelstrom or they risk being left out if the AI ​​revolution actually becomes a reality. Lisa Su, CEO of AMD, explained in her opening talk at CES 2026 that the world will need more than “10 yottaflops” of computing – 10,000 times more than the existing AI capacity in 2022 – in the next five years to be able to meet the demand posed by this massive use of AI. Chips missing… and a lot of energy. The real obstacle to achieving such computing capacity not only lies in the chips – the memory crisis is a side effect of this – but also in energy. data centers they consume a lotwhich makes national electrical networks can finish not having sufficient capacity to supply said energy. OpenAI will not stop spending. Greg Brockman, president of OpenAI, explained in December that their projects, no matter how gigantic they may seem, will go further. Although the company has already committed to investing $1.4 trillion with its partners in data centers over the next eight years, OpenAI wants to “get ahead of the future, but I don’t think we can be, no matter how ambitious we want to dream of being right now.” That is to say, he believes that all his estimates and projects may end up being dwarfed by the true scale to which AI can reach. {“videoId”:”xa1wtpm”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”Perplexity, Personal Computer”, “tag”:””, “duration”:”88″} Big Tech wants to bill you at the end of the month. Turn AI into a commodity For it to reach all homes would be an absolute triumph for the companies that are investing in it. The tech industry has not managed to direct its costs to the user other than in things like our internet connection or, at most, in our spending on streaming services —similar to current AI plans—. If it achieves that bill at the end of the month that hundreds (perhaps thousands) of millions of people would also pay, AI would become an extraordinary income machine. In Xataka | OpenClaw changed the rules of the AI ​​race. Technology companies already have their answer: copy it (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news Sam Altman has had another great idea to finally charge the user all the money he needs: a receipt at the end of the month was originally published in Xataka by Javier Pastor .

Sam Altman is laying the foundations for post-humanism as the philosophical current of the AI ​​era. It’s not good news

by

“But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes about 20 years of life and all the food you consume during that time to become intelligent.” These two sentences were enough delivered at the India-AI Impact Summit 2026to set the networks on fire. But Sam Altman didn’t stop there. “Not only that, it took the widespread evolution of the 100 billion people who have lived and who learned not to be eaten by predators and to understand science and so on to create you,” continuous. Therefore, the criticism about “how much energy is needed to train an AI model” They are extremely unfair. And it’s curious. The most “unpopular” technology in history… Not because it is not understandable (or even because it is not reasonable). It’s funny because Altman and the rest of the AI ​​bigwigs don’t seem to realize that they are making every effort to make AI extremely successful. unpopular among the population. Maybe it’s nothing new. Maybe it’s something similar to what happened with fabric making machine salesmen in the midst of the industrial revolution. Maybe it’s something similar to what motivated movements like that of the Luddites and the reason why dozens of historians rewrote their history as that of poor technophobes. What has changed is that we are now broadcasting it to the entire world — and live and direct. And very insistently. Although the discourse they use to ‘sell’ their technology to investors, technical elites and politicians around the world can only be understood at a public level as a very sophisticated way of saying: ‘human things get in the way.’ Or not so sophisticated, of course. …that is finding its “public” Team Mirai Over the last few years, in fact, the process has become less and less subtle and more blatant. It is not something that is limited to AI companiesbut it is an increasingly clear phenomenon: people speaking to a convinced hyperminority while alienating the vast social majority. And artificial intelligence is the tip of the spear. And it wouldn’t be a problem if there weren’t something else: the current great technological battle is not only technical, it is ideological, philosophical and of values. For the social changes they hope to be successful, it is necessary to move the ‘Overton window’ as quickly as possible. And it’s working. The best example is Japan: in the last election, Team Mirai ran. As Antonio Ortiz explainedis “a new Japanese party founded by engineers” with “a fairly accelerationist program: government chatbots and databases for transparency of donations and to make politics ‘faster’, reduce paperwork and achieve an increase in productivity to compensate for the labor shortage.” Well, those people just got 11 seats and 7% of the votes. In a way, two apparently contradictory processes are two legs of the same phenomenon: the discourse becomes more explicit as the population becomes more related. And changing the world is also (and above all) changing ideas. We tend to have a softened vision of social changes. However, there are several psychosocial processes that are usually key for these to be carried out: delegitimization (“what ruled until now no longer deserves obedience”), demonization (“those who hold these ideas are evil”) and dehumanization (“they are not human, moral norms do not apply”). You don’t always get to the last step, but some degree of moral disconnection it is necessary. And the artificial intelligence revolution (and all the tensions it brings) continues to show similar signs: for years, accelerationist and posthumanist groups have been ‘operating’ in the shadow of the great social and political discourses. Now, however, they face it: as the AGI approaches, everything we thought we knew (on a social, economic or institutional level) is useless. Or so they try to make us believe. And the best example is that of Altman: the CEO of OpenAI does not have to declare himself a posthumanist to lay the rhetorical tiles through which these discourses will travel: when you convert the human into energy cost comparable to an AI model, you are lowering the bar to justify “anything” in the name of efficiency But what exactly is all this talk about posthumanisms and accelerationists? Although they are two different philosophical traditions (posthumanism questions classical humanism and lays the foundations for its improvement, while accelerationism is a family of ideologies that propose accelerating certain dynamics – technological or capitalist to provoke radical social change), the truth is that in recent years they have ended up coming together. And, beyond that, they are providing the mental framework that allows certain decisions to be made that, in other scenarios, would not be socially acceptable. When the human being ceases to be the ideological ‘center’ of the system, acceleration becomes the great political principle and the AGI becomes the utopian destiny of a post-scarcity society (the modern equivalent of the Christian heaven or the Marxist classless society), everything that opposes this — rightly or wrongly — will become old, outdated or outdated. Altman’s statements in India are not an accident: they are part of the delegitimization of the current system of values ​​that the next revolution needs and, as we see, is already underway. Image | Xataka In Xataka | “A place of joy with pain”: the phrase that summarizes the Aztec philosophy to be happier in this life

Sam Altman says he’s terrified of a world where AI companies believe themselves to be more powerful than the government. It’s just what you’re building

by

Sam Altman sat down over the weekend before his audience at X to answer questions about the agreement that OpenAI has just signed with the United States War Department. What came out of that session was a beautiful involuntary x-ray of the biggest contradiction in the sector at the moment. Why is it important. The CEO of OpenAI said he is terrified of “a world where AI companies act as if they have more power than the government.” The phrase sounds good, it is marketinian and seeks to elevate OpenAI’s position as a powerful but very responsible and honest group. The problem is the context in which he pronounces it: hours before OpenAI signed that agreement, The US government labeled Anthropic, its direct rival, a “supply chain risk” for refusing to sign under those same conditions. Altman went to put out the fire just as someone accused him of setting it. Between the lines. Altman’s speech rests on a premise that must be monitored: that a democratically elected government must always prevail over unelected private companies. It is a philosophically reasonable position, but he applies it selectively. Altman acknowledged that the deal “was rushed and the picture is not good,” and that OpenAI moved quickly to “de-escalate” tension between the Pentagon and industry. In other words, your company made a unilateral strategic decision about how the entire AI industry should relate to the military establishment. That doesn’t exactly sound like institutional deference. The contrast. Anthropic opted for something different: requiring explicit safeguards against the use of its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons. But the government penalized her. OpenAI accepted a more ambiguous formula (“for all legal uses”) and won the contract. Various OpenAI employees signed a letter supporting Anthropic’s position. Claude became the most downloaded free application in the App Store that weekend from Apple, precisely surpassing ChatGPT. The market also has opinions. Yes, but. It’s fair to admit that Altman’s position has some internal logic: If AI is going to be integrated into military systems anyway, it may be preferable that it do so under negotiated conditions rather than under coercion. And he’s right about one thing: The labeling of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a tool intended for hostile foreign suppliers, applied to an American AI security company is, in his own words, “an extremely frightening precedent.” The big question. Who really decides how AI is used in military contexts? The companies that build it, the governments that hire it, or the engineers who design it and who are increasingly organized to influence those decisions? Altman says he believes in the democratic process. But OpenAI negotiated privately, signed privately, and made only a fraction of the contract public. Democratic transparency starts there. In Xataka | Anthropic has become the Apple of our era and OpenAI our Microsoft: a story of love and hate Featured image | Xataka

Sam Altman has spent his entire life saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite. And this time it didn’t even take 48 hours.

by

A Mecano’s great song —I know, this is very Kiss FM—he said that ‘the face you see is a Signal ad’. And in case any of our painfully young readers don’t know, Signal is a brand of toothpaste. And if there is anyone whose face is exactly like that, it is Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, who with a perfect and convincing smile tries to convince the world that his company is just as perfect and convincing. For many people, today is not the case. what has happened. These days we have seen how the US and its Department of Defense (or War, as they like to call it now) have decided that if any AI company wants to work with them, they are going to have to let them use the AI ​​as they see fit. That we have to massively spy on people? He spies on her, totally, we have already done it. What should we tell AI to develop lethal autonomous weapons? Well too. Anthropic stands. But lo and behold, precisely the company that was working with the Pentagon He said that oranges from China. Anthropic, which had been collaborating with the Government for months—Claude was used for the arrest of Nicolás Maduro—, has made it clear that there are red lines that he will not cross. If Anthropic doesn’t want to, let OpenAI do it. At the Pentagon they have threatened to turn Anthropic into a pariah company, but at the moment they have not made any official move. What has happened is that the US Government has decided to change its technological partner. OpenAI has replaced Anthropic and appears to have reached an agreement to work with US defense and security agencies. Sam Altman seizes the opportunity. This has been indicated by Sam Altman, who in an ad on Twitter (I still resist calling her “X”) explained that her company had agreed deploy their models on the US War Department’s classified network. The curious thing is that this agreement establishes the same red lines that Anthropic had: no espionage on American citizens and no autonomous weapons. In the official announcement they even highlight that their agreement “has more safeguards than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s.” There is, for example, one more requirement: that their models not be used for “social credit” systems with which citizens are rated based on the information collected from them. But. Although both Sam Altman and the company’s blog appear to place limits on the War Department’s use of its AI, the terms of that agreement contradict Altman’s claims. The announcement mentions a specific paragraph of the agreement that explicitly states the following: The War Department may use the AI ​​system for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established security and oversight protocols. “The AI ​​system will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where human control is required by law, regulation or Department policy, nor will it be used to make other high-risk decisions that require approval from a similarly competent human decision-maker.” Mass spying on American citizens is legal in certain scenarios as part of the Patriot Act that was passed after the 9/11 attacks, and that would allow AI to process data and communications collected by mass surveillance systems. Jeremy Lewin, a State Department official, has indicated that this agreement “flows from the pillar of ‘all legitimate use’”, and points out that what Altman proposes regarding red lines is not as clear-cut as it seems. Internal protests. Last Friday at 5:01 p.m., Anthropic was due to accept the Pentagon’s terms, but it did not do so. During that morning, several OpenAI and Google employees showed their support for the ethical and moral positioning of the rival company, and almost 800 of them (681 from Google, 96 from OpenAI) signed an open letter entitled “We will not be divided.” Altman says one thing, does another. In an interview with CNBCSam Altman said on CNBC that despite all the differences he has with Anthropic, “I trust them as a company, and I think they really care about safety.” On Thursday, the CEO of OpenAI sent an internal statement expressing his desire for “things to de-escalate between Anthropic and the Department of Defense.” The message came to nothing less than two days later, when he announced the agreement with the same Department. Altman says one thing, does another. In an interview with CNBCSam Altman said on CNBC that despite all the differences he has with Anthropic, “I trust them as a company, and I think they really care about safety.” On Thursday, the CEO of OpenAI sent an internal statement expressing his desire for “things to de-escalate between Anthropic and the Department of Defense.” The message came to nothing less than two days later, when he announced the agreement with the same Department. The world against OpenAI. Many have ended up criticizing OpenAI’s way of acting on social networks. On Reddit they appeared several messages that encouraged users to “Cancel ChatGPT” with thousands of positive votes and also thousands of comments in which the tone was indignant with the way in which OpenAI and Sam Altman have taken advantage of this circumstance. We have seen critical movements in the past —Facebook, Netflix—, but it usually happens that after these first moments, companies end up recovering from the criticism and even come out stronger for a simple reason: Human beings have very bad memories. In Xataka | OpenAI has a problem: Anthropic is succeeding right where the most money is at stake

AI consumes obscene amounts of energy. Sam Altman compares it to the cost of “training” humans

by

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman participated in an event organized by The Indian Express. During the interview made some striking statements, but the greatest of all of them was the one he dedicated to talking about what it costs to train an AI model. In fact, he complained about how many of ChatGPT’s energy consumption discussions they are unfair. Training humans also consumes a lot. The interviewer asked Altman about ChatGPT’s energy consumption and Sam Altman took a few seconds to answer the question, and then made a peculiar comparison (my bold): One of the things that is always unfair in this comparison is that it talks about how much energy it takes to train an AI model compared to what it costs a human to perform an inference query. But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes about 20 years of life and all the food you eat during that time before you become intelligent. And not only that, it took the widespread evolution of the hundred billion people who have lived and learned not to be eaten by predators and to understand science and so on to create you. The fair comparison is if you ask ChatGPT, how much energy does it take once their model is trained to answer that question compared to a human? And AI has probably already caught up in terms of energy efficiency if we measure it that way. A previous Epoch AI study corroborates that energy consumption during inference (when we actually use ChatGPT, for example) is low. Source: Epoch AI. Training is one thing, inference another.. The answer may be controversial, but to a certain extent it is logical: learning, both in the case of humans and AI, takes time and consumes many resources, but that cost is one thing and the cost of inference, of “applying that training”, is another. Once we have learned, it is not too difficult to answer things. This is what Altman is trying to point out here, who recognizes that AI does indeed consume a lot of energy in training, but that it has then become very efficient in the inference phase, when we actually use ChatGPT. The problem is that although Altman has already spoken that in inference consumption is minimal, does not provide evidence of this. The water problem is no longer a problem. He also spoke about the controversial water consumption that was theoretically carried out in large AI data centers. Although he acknowledged that this was a problem when “we used to use evaporative cooling in data centers.” Now, however, “we don’t do that,” he recalled, and made it clear that those accusations that “ChatGPT uses 17 gallons per query, or whatever” is totally false, “totally crazy, it has no connection with reality.” But again, there is still no official data from AI companies in this section. How much does AI really consume? The truth is that at this point we still do not have really clear data on how much the AI ​​consumes both in the training phase and in the inference phase. There are those who have investigated energy and water consumption and have made a mistake. wildly exaggerating the databut for example in the US, where a large number of data centers are concentrated, there is no legislation that forces transparency with those figures. Increasingly more efficient models and data centers. One of the most interesting studies was the one made by Epoch AI in February 2025, and at that time it was also concluded that AI did not actually consume as much as it was said to consume. In fact, it consumed relatively little and the models have only improved in efficiency. Chips and cooling systems have also improved, and although data centers have certainly require enormous amounts of energywe continue blindly in this section. In Xataka | Spain has a plan to capture more data centers than anyone else: “shield” them from energy costs

Elon Musk and Sam Altman predicted that AI will force the establishment of a universal basic income. The United Kingdom is already considering it

by

The main economic organizations in the world they don’t agree in their forecasts about what the real impact of the arrival of AI will be in the economic and labor sphere. A report The World Economic Forum estimated that AI will create 170 million new jobs. The problem is that until that happens, it will destroy about 92 million jobs. The US Senate consider that some 100 million jobs could be destroyed. Elon Musk and Sam Altman have repeated on several occasions that, to minimize this impact on society, it will be necessary to implement a universal basic income. In the United Kingdom, the government is debating measures to protect workers with the same idea. Millionaires ask for a basic income. Some of the top AI millionaires, such as Elon Musk, have predicted that universal basic income will be a reality in a future dominated by AI. While it is true that Musk’s vision is based on a vision more optimistic about the future in which “work will be optional” and it will not be necessary to save for retirement, the millionaire does not deny that universal income will be a necessary instrument to achieve it. Along the same lines, although with a more realistic vision, the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, has funded studies on the effects of universal basic income in a scenario of job destruction and how this income helps recipients return to work train for new jobs. Companies do not need human labor. In one your blog postDario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, warned that AI will have an “unusually painful” impact on the labor market. “AI is not a substitute for specific human jobs, but rather a general job substitute for humans,” the manager wrote. For this reason, this mechanism is increasingly seen as a transition instrument that allows employees laid off due to the arrival of AI to retrain to re-enter the labor market. A systematic review of the Department of Economics of the University of Huelva on more than 50 empirical casespoint out that universal basic income improves spending on basic needs without participants stopping looking for work, so it will be a way for employees to train for new jobs. jobs created by AI. The UK Government is debating it. In an interview for Financial TimesJason Stockwood, UK Investment Minister, has revealed that within the Government “it is definitely being talked about.” The minister noted that “without a doubt, we are going to have to think very carefully about how to smooth the process of disembarking those industries that disappear, through some type of UBI and some type of lifelong learning mechanism so that people can retrain.” According to published BloombergMorgan Stanley declared a net job loss of 8% in the UK in the last 12 months due to AI, the highest among large economies. Which explains the concern of the British executive to begin evaluating formulas that cushion this impact. A lifeline to keep them afloat. Unlike Musk’s “optimistic” vision, British representatives do not see the arrival of AI as a liberating element that makes work optional, but as a problem that will temporarily leave millions of workers who will need help unemployed. So declared it Sadiq Khan, mayor of London, concerned about the high rate of “white collar” unemployment that can cause the arrival of AI in a city like London. Liz Kendall, Secretary of Technology of the United Kingdom, spoke along the same lines, assuring that, although it is true that more jobs will be created than will be lost, there will be a transition period in which AI will be “a weapon of mass destruction of jobs. We will not leave people and communities to fend for themselves,” collected Guardian. The million-dollar question: who finances that income? It is easy to predict that universal basic income would be a solution for those who do not have a job to return to because AI has automated it. However, something more complicated will be determining who will finance that basic income. Bill Gates already gave some clues almost a decade agoensuring that they should be their own companies that use robots in their processes those that pay for that subsidy “if a robot replaces the work of a human, that robot must pay taxes like a human.” Ioana Marinescu, economist and associate professor of public policy at the University of Pennsylvania consider that taxing technology companies could slow down their implementation at the local level, so that this transformation process it would be more progressive increasing that transition period that would give time to the labor market to adapt. In Xataka | AI and its impact on the labor market: how the perception of its arrival varies by country, explained in a graph Image | Unsplash (Alexander Gray, enrico bet)

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.