openai

The AI ​​industry fell in love with OpenAI, but doesn’t trust its CEO one bit

by

At OpenAI they see a future in which the work week should have four days. Not only that: every citizen should receive a share of the economic growth generated by AI. These are some of the proposals that the company has published yesterday with the aim of preparing us for the “age of intelligence.” And just the day they published that proposal full of good and reassuring intentions, a blow arrived for the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman. An investigation published in The New Yorker once again called into question his way of acting, highly criticized by experts and engineers who worked with him. The conclusion of all of them: better not trust Sam Altman. The arrival of the age of intelligence. What they call the “age of intelligence” will undoubtedly have a negative impact in some areas, but OpenAI proposes with their document to make changes that mitigate these problems. Among the most striking measures is the creation of a “public wealth fund” that will distribute dividends from AI directly among citizens, regardless of their employment status. Let the machines work (and pay us for it). They also suggest taxes on automated labor to finance social security, and also pilot projects of four-day work weeks without salary reduction. The proposal is striking and seeks, of course, to reassure citizens in the face of threats such as job loss that can be caused by the mass adoption of AI. The problem is that this proposal comes at a delicate moment for an OpenAI in the midst of a reputational crisis. Smokescreen? This optimistic proposal contrasts with the report published in The New Yorker and in which the authors interviewed more than 100 people “with first-hand knowledge of how Altman behaves in business.” And among them, rivals like Ilya Sutskever or above all Dario Amodei who founded their own startups. Both harshly criticized Altman. Sutskever accumulated internal documents and messages showing deception and manipulation. Amodei stated that the obstacle to AI security is Altman himself, who leaves that area in the background compared to the company’s ambition for personal power and excessive growth. For his former partners, Altman is not a visionary, but an actor with a calculated pose. Says one thing, does another. The scandal of dismissal and later return of Altman was due precisely to that attitude in which the council accused him of having “not been consistently frank in his communications.” It’s the same thing we’ve read on other occasions: Altman has a dual personality. In him, the pathological desire to be liked and accepted is mixed with a total lack of concern for the long-term consequences of his misdeeds. He tells his interlocutors what they want to hear, and then does what he really wanted from the beginning. It is something that, for example, Karen Hao narrates over and over again. in his book ‘Empire of AI’in which, it must be said, it erred in calculating the water consumption of data centers mentioned in its studies. In the report they mention how the well-known programmer Aaron Swartz met him before die in 2013 and commented about him even then that “he is a sociopath.” Public image is everything. The publication of the OpenAI document occurs at a particularly critical time for the company, which is involved in a reputational and strategic crisis. Anthropic has managed to become the darling of the AI ​​industry —without being much less perfect— and OpenAI has realized that it was experimenting with too many AI applications that were not profitable and now wants to refocus on what makes it profitable. The good intentions shown in the document try to get public opinion on their side just when the company plans its IPO. Learning from the past. Altman’s critics reveal that he is an expert at designing control mechanisms that go up in smoke. Support AI regulations (at least those that favor you) and publicly promotes ethics committees and alignment and security of the AI ​​that in reality later knocks down internally, at least according to those who work with it. It happened when he promised to allocate 20% of the computing capacity to the super-alignment team, and then actually gave up only between 1 and 2% of that capacity. Jan Leike, who was named co-leader of that team along with Sutskever, resigned in May 2024 indicating that “safety culture and processes have been relegated to the background compared to flashy products,” he explained in a thread in X. He ended up signing for Anthropic. Interested reviews. Although Altman’s career at the head of OpenAI –with what happened to the Pentagon as a recent example—reinforces the comments of those who criticize him, it must be remembered that competition in this industry is currently fierce. Many of those who participate in the report are direct rivals and therefore their criticism, veiled or not, is partly self-serving because it harms their competitor. In Xataka | There is a new generation of AI models at the doors and Anthropic has to sell them: “The biggest and smartest”

OpenAI is the most successful company on the planet. Also the one that plans to lose 85,000 million dollars in a single year

by

Something special is going to happen in 2026: both OpenAI and Anthropic are going public. This will finally mean that individual investors can invest in them and bet on their future with their money. It will be the definitive exam for the credibility of companies that have grown exceptionally in recent years but also They have burned the money as if there were no tomorrow. But be careful, because there is a compelling reality here: they are going to continue burning it in an even more astonishing way. The two sides of the IPO. The Wall Street Journal has had access to the financial documents submitted to investors before the IPOs proposed by both OpenAI and Anthropic. They reveal extraordinarily striking data that have two sides. Amazement and concern with OpenAI. For example, OpenAI has indicated that it will almost double its revenue this year. According to their forecasts, they could become profitable in 2026 if one excludes the cost of training their models (which are stratospheric, of course). But there is the other reality: OpenAI expects to spend $121 billion on computing power in 2028, so even doubling revenue it will lose, attention, $85 billion. No company has ever lost this amount of money and survived, but OpenAI not only promises that it will survive, but that those losses will end up being almost anecdotal. I tell you the truth, but only part of it. Both companies wanted to show two different versions of reality when talking about how they present their profitability. In one, the very expensive model training processes are included, and in others in which these costs are excluded under a heading called “computing for research.” Excluding those costs, OpenAI is on track to achieve a small pre-tax operating profit this year. Anthropic also promises to achieve this if its most optimistic scenario comes true. Excluding the cost of training models, both OpenAI and Anthropic could be “profitable” this year. Source: WSJ. Until 2030, no real profitability. If the costs and investment in model training are included, OpenAI indicates that it will end up being profitable in 2030, a fact that They had already planned a long time ago and that could not hide a forceful reality: the company has not only not stopped spending money until now: it is going to continue spending it, but to an even greater extent with projects like Stargate to the head. Saying that in 2026 they will be profitable if we do not consider training costs is like an airline telling us that it is profitable excluding the cost of fuel. Anthropic, by the way, expects to be fully profitable in 2028. Revenues growing fast, costs even faster. In addition to those training processes, both OpenAI and Anthropic are spending billions of dollars every year in inferencea section that is beginning to be even more important at an operational and strategic level. Currently, these inference costs represent half of each company’s revenue, although inference technology is expected to becomes cheaper and therefore the costs too. Here, however, there are two big differences between both companies: OpenAI: most ChatGPT users do not pay to use the service, so OpenAI assumes these inference costs without making them profitable. According to OpenAI, this facilitates adoption and will allow users to become subscribers in the future, something that is not happening too much at the moment. Anthropic: This startup has managed to win over many companies that pay to use their models, and it is evident that the company is absolutely focused on making you pay to use their models if you want to use them. And if not, Tell OpenClaw. Betting on the future. The companies and venture capital funds that have invested billions in OpenAI or Anthropic have made a bet on the future. They have blind faith that these companies will end up taking over the world, so the fact that today they are still not profitable does not scare them… or not enough to withdraw from this expensive race. Both have experienced spectacular growth that serves as an argument for investors. In addition, the growing interest of companies in integrating AI solutions by paying for them has boosted Anthropic and even caused OpenAI to reorganize and change its strategy. Less fireworks and hypemore focus in what makes money. The IPO as a trick to survive. Both companies are going to continue burning money like there was no tomorrow in the coming years, but now they hope that investors will be the ones to sustain their businesses. The amount of money they will need has made even the Nasdaq make things easier: It will allow newly listed companies to join its renowned index more quickly, giving them access to larger capital reserves. Now it will be the public market and to a large extent the individual investor who will decide whether they want to bet on that future or not. A small survey. Would you invest in OpenAI or Anthropic if it went public? It is evident that both companies generate different impressions, and although their strategies and ways of doing things are different, it is clear that this public sale offer is going to be very striking when it occurs. So, it is a good time to find out a little about what you, the xatakeros, think about this financial movement of these companies. Image | TechCrunch | Wikimedia Commons In Xataka | NVIDIA has so much money that it is becoming something different: the largest startup incubator in the world

Each new AI model is the best ever until the next one arrives. Anthropic and OpenAI have turned that into a business

by

It doesn’t matter what technological product we are talking about, because both the product and how it is sold to you matters. And here making promises and generating expectations is the classic strategy. The next processor is going to be more powerful, the next smartphone is going to take better photos… and of course, the next AI model is going to be (much) better. We are seeing that message constantly in the AI ​​segment, but now it is going further. Anthropic and a curious leak. A group of security researchers they detected a few days ago 3,000 unpublished documents in an accessible Anthropic database. They included a draft of the blog entry that corresponded to the theoretical launch of their next AI model. The striking thing is not so much the filtration itself (whether intentional or not), but what those documents reveal. Mythos goes beyond mere evolution. Or at least that’s what that leaked draft seems to reveal. It describes a model called Claude Mythos—also called Capybara—which would not be a simple improvement on Claude Opus, but would be a level above it. The document says that this model is “bigger and smarter than our Opus models, which until now were the most powerful.” Anthropic signs up for hype. According to this leak, the benchmark scores would be notably higher than those of Opus 4.6 in programming, reasoning and cybersecurity. At Anthropic have ended up confirming the existence of this development, and have described it as “a level change” and “the most capable model we have created to date.” It’s not too surprising a phrase, because it’s basically the same thing they’ve been saying about every new model they’ve released. And even they are scared. In fact, what is surprising in that draft is not the message that it is better, but the warnings that accompany that future presentation. Thus, Anthropic describes Mythos as “currently far ahead of any other AI model in cybersecurity capabilities.” In fact, they warn that this may be the beginning of “an imminent wave of models that can exploit vulnerabilities in ways that far exceed the efforts of the defenders.” Or what is the same: Mythos could be a extraordinary tool for cyber attackers. The actual launch plan is to first offer Mythos to cybersecurity organizations to prepare. We will see if that gives an advantage, if Mythos meets expectations. OpenAI also makes a move. Both Anthropic and OpenAI have been moving in parallel for some time, and now they have done so again. At OpenAI they are preparing their new AI model, codenamed “Spud” (“potato”). Hardly anything is known about him beyond the fact that his pre-training phase has been completed. More relevant is that this model appears just when At OpenAI they have decided to be less OpenAI and more Anthropic. They have abandoned Sora and they are redirecting resources to regain ground where they are losing it. That is, in companies. But the count is not infinite.. These days, users of Claude’s $100 and $200 per month plans began to notice how they used up their limits and token quotas in less than an hour during their work hours. What is happening is that Anthropic is training more powerful but much more expensive models to use and that makes it difficult to serve them. Demand is growing faster than the efficiency improvements that are coming, so according to some analysts, AI companies are adjusting those quotas and in a sense making Their models behave as if they were “dumber” to save. It’s something we’ve seen in the past. hedonic adaptation. The psychologists called hedonic adaptation to the phenomenon by which humans quickly become accustomed to any level of experience, good or bad, and return to our starting emotional state. When applied to AI, this phenomenon explains that this model that seemed miraculous to us six months ago today seems slow and limited, and what six months ago seemed like science fiction is today the minimum we ask of companies. Anthropic and OpenAI have not invented the concept, but they have integrated it into their roadmaps like other technology companies in the past. We mentioned it before: they not only sell what they have today, but (more importantly) what they will have tomorrow. Mythos will be brutal and very expensive. Anthropic’s draft warns that Mythos will be “very expensive to serve and will be very expensive for our customers.” That points to two possibilities. The first is that only users of the Max plans can access some consultations with this model. The second, that a subscription appears even more expensive than that 200 dollars a month so we can leverage Mythos with more leeway. We already had a free AI, a basic paid AI and a high-end paid AI. Now we will also have super high-end AI. In Xataka | The hard landing of OpenAI: after years at the forefront, it is discovering that AI is not won only with memes and hype

OpenAI had to choose between “being the company that has erotic AI” or competing with Anthropic. And he has chosen the obvious

by

Sam Altman wasn’t afraid to try things. That people want to create Studio Ghibli style images? Forward. AI Videos hyperrealistic? Go for it. A browser with AI? we have it. Wherever I saw an option to add AI, OpenAI added it. But that was before, because these projects are being put on the back burner or directly closed for a simple reason: they are blank bullets. ChatGPT is not going to flirt with you. According to the Financial TimesOpenAI has canceled its plans to launch an erotic chatbot, and now the goal is to focus its resources on its most important products. The decision is partly a response to tensions and internal criticism from employees and investors when offering sexualized AI content. One former employee noted that “AI shouldn’t replace your friends or family; you should have human connections.” Making an erotic chatbot is not that easy. In addition to the social impact, it seems that OpenAI has had to face really complex technical challenges when creating this type of chatbot. Training an AI model to do something that “normal” models were trying to avoid was causing problems. For example, when including data sets with explicit content it was necessary to eliminate illegal behavior, such as bestiality or incest. That adult mode, called “Citron mode” internally, could have required users to prove that they were over 18 years old. Too much risk. The move to launch an “adult mode” of ChatGPT was reputationally risky, and people familiar with the decision have indicated that OpenAI wants to begin a long-term investigation into the effects of explicitly sexual chats and the emotional bonds that this type of interaction can create in users. They point out that at the moment there is no “empirical evidence” about the impact, but for now they are clear. And yet, there is another great reason to cancel it indefinitely. Let’s focus on what makes money. In recent weeks we have seen how the new pretty girl of the world of AI is Anthropic, which with Claude has managed to conquer precisely the market sector that is beginning to generate income decent for AI: the companies. OpenAI had been especially focused on end users, but the steps it has taken to try to convince us to pay for ChatGPT Plus/Pro They don’t quite work. No ads, no shopping. A few months ago OpenAI announced that ChatGPT was already capable of buy things for you with its Instant Checkout. The feature was really promising and proposed a paradigm shift in the rules of traditional e-commerce, but this launch seems to have had much less impact than expected. The decision to place ads during conversations seems not going to make ChatGPT’s revenue skyrocket either, so the solution is becoming clearer: if we have to be like Anthropic, we will be more Anthropic, we imagine Sam Altman is saying. Goodbye Sora… The ads don’t quite work, neither does Instant Checkout, and many other launches have not gone beyond generating a fleeting expectation. It happened with Sora: that OpenAI I abandoned her It is a disturbing sign that the company prefers to completely recalibrate. …hello superapp. Another sign of this reorganization is the fact that OpenAI is preparing a desktop tool that will unify its chatbot, its code platform (Codex) and the Atlas browser. The objective, to create a super app with agentic capabilities, not only oriented to code, but also to productivity. It is not clear if they will launch it as a solution for end users or the destination will be the company, where Anthropic is winning the game. New ‘Spud’ model in sight. In The Information indicated this week that OpenAI had recently completed development of a new AI model called Spud. OpenAI is expected to launch it in the coming weeks, and Altman reportedly told his employees that such a model “can really accelerate the economy.” It is not clear what it refers to (agent capabilities?), but with it OpenAI may be able to regain some of the ground lost with Anthropic. If Anthropic lets him, which we doubt. Image | Universal Pictures In Xataka | Wikipedia has banned using AI to write or rewrite articles in English. Human knowledge begins to raise barriers

OpenAI promised them they would be happy selling hype and memes. Until reality hits

by

The news of the weekend is Sora’s closure. What was once the platform of the hype Regarding video creation, he says goodbye, leaving agreements behind millionaires with giants like DisneyOpenAI’s promise to be one of the big players in text to video, and doubts about the company’s strategy. The bet on hype. For some time now, OpenAI’s strategy has been to create hype, be the protagonist in the conversation, and wait for the user to assimilate its proposal. The problem? It is a strategy that worked in its initial phases, when OpenAI played practically alone. We saw it with Sora: the launch was the most talked about on networks, television and practically all media. Months after its launch, there was no way to use the app without VPN outside the United States (and in a very controlled way through its app in countries such as Canada, Japan, Korea or Vietnam) and was still in the experimental phase. The closure. Sora hasn’t lasted even two years. It was born in February 2024 and says goodbye in March 2026. What was born as the reference model for video creation remained a half-baked experiment, while Chinese giants or Google itself with their models I see They advanced and landed their models on the plane that really matters: the one that allows the average user to access it. The competition tightens. OpenAI promised them happiness two years ago, when ChatGPT had hardly any rivals and companies like Anthropic were in their early product stages. But photography has changed in just a few months: Claude is becoming, with almost daily iterations, the most complete chatbot (it is already much more than that). Gemini has been starting to eat his toast for a year. China is absolutely unleashed launching spectacular video models like Seedance 2.0. AI solutions are no longer promises and hype: they are rapid and controlled launches, integrated into platforms that any average user can access. If you don’t integrate, you don’t win. Seedance 2.0 has not even been running for three months and already It is beginning to be integrated into editing programs such as CapCut. AIs like KlingAI have been integrated into gigantic platforms like HighsfieldAI for months. Releases that materialize a few days after seeing the light, and that lay tangible foundations for the state of AI in text to video. OpenAI assumed that a minority of professionals would be willing to pay for the more expensive versions of GPT to access Sora. The reality: the competition is managing to create much superior mass-use tools, and OpenAI cannot afford tools like Sora. The money is on the other side. Sam Altman need to redefine the strategy. For the moment, he wants double the company’s workforcecenter everything in one superapp that reduces catalog and he has his eyes on Spud. This is the name given internally to the next great AI model they are preparing, one aimed at making OpenAI finally a profitable company. After years without a fixed direction, and with its rivals eating its toast, OpenAI faces its most complex stage: one in which selling hype is not enough. In Xataka | Sora’s closure is a sign: OpenAI takes a step back in the AI ​​race to completely recalibrate

that OpenAI does not run out of funding

by

OpenAI’s strategy until now had been to shoot into the air to see if, with luck, a bullet would hit the target. They have finally realized that it was not the way to go and for a few days there have been signs that the company is beginning to define its priorities once and for all. They plan duplicate your template before the end of the year, they want to launch a super app to simplify your catalog and even They have closed Sora 2. The changes are being profound and also affect their own CEO. What is Sam Altman’s role in this new OpenAI? Raise money. They count in The Information that Sam Altman has changed his role within the company. Until now, the CEO directly supervised the safety and security teams, but from now on he will focus on securing more investments, managing supply chains and building data centers “on an unprecedented scale.” Why it is important. This change suggests two things: on the one hand, that Altman would have distanced himself from strategic issues to become more involved in technical or secondary aspects; and on the other, that the situation within OpenAI is serious enough to move it to a role more focused on fundraising. As a consequence of the closure of Sora, OpenAI has lost the agreement it signed with Disney worth 1 billion dollars. Added to this is that recently NVIDIA itself got off the wagon with its 100,000 million. The situation is, to say the least, delicate. Saving mode. OpenAI’s strategic pivot seeks to save both money and computing resources. The closure of Sora has a lot to do with the latter since the app consumed a lot of resources, and it had only been launched in the United States. The team that was dedicated to its development will now dedicate itself to robotics-oriented world simulation. Additionally, the applications division led by Fidgi Simo is now called “AGI deployment” and will primarily focus on commercialization and real-world usage. Spud. That’s what the company’s next big AI model is called internally. According to The Information, the pre-training phase has already concluded and it is expected to be launched in the coming weeks. It’s unclear what capabilities this model will have, but Sam Altman has told employees that it “can really boost the economy.” Once again, it confirms that the strategic shift points in the direction of the desired profitability. AI as a consumer product. Throughout 2025, Open AI launched many very different products that added to those they already had, which were not few. With Sora 2 They wanted to be a social network, with ChatGPT Atlas a browser, there are plans for a sex mode on ChatGPT… Until now, OpenAI’s bet has been to turn AI into a mass consumer product, but they have discovered that going viral is not the same as making money and that having so many eggs in so many baskets is not profitable. AI as a business product. While OpenAI was searching for its identity without a fixed direction, there was another company that was very clear: Anthropic. The startup focused primarily on business clients, those who do not have so many qualms about paying subscriptions of hundreds of dollars a month, and little by little it has been taking over OpenAI. The figures They are not lying: two years ago OpenAI had a 50% enterprise market share and today it has 25%, while Anthropic already has 32%. Image | Xataka with Freepik In Xataka | Sora’s closure is a sign: OpenAI takes a step back in the AI ​​race to completely recalibrate

OpenAI has signed countless billion-dollar agreements with other companies. We are discovering that they are made of paper

by

OpenAI has announced that will abandon development of Soraits AI video generator, just six months after the launch of its standalone app. Disney, which had announced a $1 billion investment in OpenAI in exchange for licensing its characters for Sora, has confirmed that the deal will not go ahead. The money never changed handsand joins others in recent weeks that send a worrying message. One that calls into question the real strength of the most valued company in the AI ​​sector. Paper agreements. In recent months, OpenAi has been the protagonist of a frenetic string of announcements that have shaken the stock markets and sent prices skyrocketing. Analysts like Ed Zitron have documented in detail how these agreements are for now more smoke than anything else: all of them were “letters of intent”, conditional commitments that now seem increasingly difficult to come true. There are examples everywhere. The NVIDIA case: the one hundred billion that did not exist. In September 2025 NVIDIA announced a “strategic partnership” with OpenAI to invest “up to 100 billion dollars” and build 10 GW of data centers. Four months later, the company led by Jensen Huang considerably reduced that investment to 30 billion dollars. Jensen Huang recently stated that this will “probably” be the last round he will enter into OpenAI and clarified that the statement made it clear that this was a “letter of intent”, not a contract. Months later in NVIDIA’s quarterly results, the agreement is described as “an opportunity to invest in OpenAI.” Not a single dollar has been sent to him, and it is not certain that he will. The AMD case: 34% rise in the stock market. In October, another mega-deal. amd announced a “definitive” agreement with openAI to deploy 6 GW of data centers. The company indicated that would potentially generate “tens of billions in revenue,” and AMD shares rose 34% in one day. Four months later, in quarterly results from the company, zero mentions of OpenIA. IN November 2025, in AMD’s 10-Q filing, AMD’s outstanding obligations on contracts with a duration greater than one year were 279 million dollars. There were practically no mentions of OpenAI. Many promises, no reality. The Broadcom case: a confusing order. Broadcom too was going to deploy 10 GW of “AI accelerators designed by OpenAI” at the end of 2029, but at the moment there is still no evidence that chip sales have occurred and there are no clues in OpenAI’s latest quarterly results, which do not mention this agreement anywhere or its impact. Broadcom CEO he did tell investors that they expected to deploy 1 GW of computing in the form of XPUs in 2027, but did not give details of how they planned to reach 10 GW in 2029. And also revealed that “we do not expect much in 2026” from the contract with OpenAI, because the return will focus on 2027, 2028 and 2029. The Disney case: a very bad sign. The agreement with Disney announced in Decemberincluded the company taking a $1 billion stake and will license more than 200 characters from Disney, Marvel, Pixar and Star Wars for use on Sora. It was the type of agreement that validates a company before the general public, especially since Disney does not sign agreements with just anyone. However, the agreement was entirely built on stock warrants, not cash, they point out in Deadline. By abandoning Sora, Disney has withdrawn without consequences and without having transferred a dollar. Another paper agreement. The SKHynix case: where are we going to get so much memory from?. SK Hynix and Samsung intended to provide 900,000 RAM wafers per month for OpenAI’s Stargate project, but the result of these intentions has been null. That agreement would have consumed 40% of world production of DRAM in the midst of the crisis of this type of components. The mysterious Norwegian data center case. OpenAI promised in July 2025 that would boost construction of an AI data center belonging to the Stargate project but which would be in Norway. It was then expected that this center would have 100,000 NVIDIA chips by the end of 2026, and that it would expand “significantly” from that figure. There has been no news of this development since then. Nobody asks questions. Zitron complained in your reflection how financial analysts seemed not to ask the necessary questions when faced with these announcements. He explains that OpenAI had committed about $300 billion in different agreements to create new data centers, but its real income is around $4.5 billion a year and it is expected that it will have losses of about $14 billion in 2026. Despite everything, Zitron criticizes, the stream of advertisements continues to work because it generates increases in the stock market and positive headlines. The difference between contracts and letters of intent was buried in the fine print of the advertisements that almost no one reads. And the examples continue. In fact, the advertisements do not stop coming despite everything and everyone. OpenAI announced in February an investment of 110 billion dollars by SoftBank (30 billion), NVIDIA (30 billion) and Amazon (50 billion). SoftBank itself is “testing its lending limits” with that bet, which we will see if he can complete. Amazon’s 50 billion are divided in two phases: a first of 15,000 million that should be executed on March 31, and another of 35,000 million dollars whose deadlines depend on several events. Too many agreements that must demonstrate something critical: that they are not made of paper. In Xataka | Problems are multiplying for OpenAI in the race for AI. Your solution: go from 4,500 to 8,000 workers

OpenAI takes a step back in the AI ​​race to completely recalibrate

by

OpenAI Sora has closed. His generative video AI that he has proudly shown on numerous occasions and which earned him a juicy $1 billion deal with Disney it no longer exists. The news fell like a bomb a few hours ago followed by the withdrawal of that billion-dollar Disney investment. Although there are those who point out that OpenAI is in trouble, those problems are not so much economic as lack of direction, and closing Sora seems only a step backwards in the long-distance race of OpenAI and AI. Go public this year and start harvesting after everything planted. In short. It’s the news of the day. Less than a year and a half after launching it, OpenAI says goodbye to Sora. In his day (February 2024, how time flies) we were amazed at what this generative AI could do. It was just 60 seconds of video and had some huge flaws, but it was one more step in the artificial intelligence race that positioned OpenAI at the forefront of the industry. Then other competing models arrived, culminating with a Seedance 2.0 that has consumed the entire Internet to plagiarize absolutely anything. Like all the others, wow. Issues. But although striking, Sora was a tool that didn’t seem to add up. While other services have integrated their generative AI models within an ecosystem or applications (the aforementioned Seedance 2.0 in suites AI or in the video editor CapCutfor example), Sora was there, away. The aforementioned contract with Disney was worth it, but it did not seem to be part of something larger, of a “creative suite” (if generative AI can be classified as such). He simply existed, and the worst thing was that others were passing him on the right. Eggs in many baskets. It was, in short, another product of an OpenAI that had eggs in many baskets. It was reaching dizzying numbers in different rounds of financing, setting up data centers, buying a lot from NVIDIA (depending a lot on NVIDIA, too) and launching products like crazy. OpenAI wanted to touch all the keys: And there are some other products, as well as a super app to integrate all that that was not being integrated into other sites. The philosophy was simple: if we are in everything, something will work, but the result has been the opposite and, as my colleague Javier Pastor said a few days ago, wanting to be the bride at the wedding and the dead man at the funeral It is having consequences. The competition tightens. While OpenAI diversified and allocated resources to touch all suits, Anthropic (which is not just a rival, it is a public enemy) was dedicated to two things. It’s not that Anthropic doesn’t have a browser or a video generator: it’s that they don’t even have an image generator. In exchange, what they do have They are functional, precise models and that they do things very well, especially in the field of amateur development with the vibe coding. Focusing on one thing and doing it very well is something that the market is seeing valueto the point that Anthropic is raising a lot of money in different recent financing rounds. In a short time, it has gone from being valued at 183,000 million to arrive up to 380,000 million, and that has had all the fuss with the United States government and the loss of contract with the Department of Defense. Money, too. And money moves everything, and while ChatGPT sweeps the consumer segment with more than 2.5 billion daily queries, you have to wonder how many paying users there are. Where the money really is, which is in business use, Anthropic controls the market with 32% compared to OpenAI’s 25%. And in programming, the distance is astronomical: 42% compared to 21%. In fact, OpenAI has seen how your business share has fallen from 50% in 2023 to just 25% today. As we say, this is where the greatest potential for growth and commercial performance is, and OpenAI is realizing that being focused on so many fields has caused them to be distracted. Or what is the same: they have covered more than they could bite off. Public company. The closure of Sora responds to a multitude of factors, but in the background there is something more important. NVIDIA has already said that the millionaire mega-rounds are overand it has done so just before the expected IPO of both OpenAI and Anthropic. When both go on the stock market, they will have to face another financing model. They will need products that generate profits to attract investors to buy shares, and right now, the one that is best positioned is Anthropic. OpenAI has a lot, but nothing makes it complete. Anthropic has less, but it is very efficient, and getting rid of Sora seems like a move to release ballast before becoming a “public” company (in the American concept). They have to focus their shooting, focus their teams (something they themselves have recognized) and stop wanting to be too much at once without having a clear strategy. Because they are becoming another example of being a pioneer It doesn’t always mean you’re the best. and that, if you don’t get your act together, competitors who have a clearer roadmap will eat your toast. Only time will tell if the strategy works, but at the rate things are going, it won’t take too long to find out. In Xataka | The worrying thing is not that AI is going to take your job in the future: it’s that it is preventing you from finding one now

OpenAI seemed unstoppable. Now he has decided to leave Sora behind and change course

by

There was a time when OpenAI seemed to move forward without looking back, adding release after release while the rest of the industry tried to keep up. On that stage it appeared sorapresented in February 2024 as a model capable of generating video from text and, shortly after, as an application with broader aspirations. The idea was not only to create clips, but also to give them a place to circulate, share them and turn them into a more social experience. It was, in a way, the natural extension of a company that never stopped exploring new formats. The closure. What fit as one more step within that expansion has ended in a twist that is difficult to ignore. OpenAI has confirmed the end of the Sora app, a decision that the team itself has communicated with a direct message to those who used it: “We say goodbye to the Sora app.” According to The Wall Street Journalthe withdrawal would not be limited to the app: it would also affect the API and video support within ChatGPT. For now there are no specific dates or complete technical details, although the company has announced that it will offer more information shortly. What was Sora and why did it matter?. To understand what this closure means, it is worth clarifying what Sora was. It was a system capable of generating videos from text and expanding existing clips. Over time, that capability became a broader product, with functions for sharing content generated within the platform itself. It was not just another tool, but one of the proposals with which OpenAI sought to bring AI to the field of audiovisual creation. The change of prioritys. Less video, more code and agents. The closure of Sora is not an isolated move, but part of a broader change within OpenAI. According to the aforementioned newspaper, the company is reorienting computing capacity and part of its equipment towards productivity tools, programming and systems capable of acting autonomously on the user’s computer. In that same line, The company recently announced the integration of its ChatGPT app, its Codex code tool and its browser into a kind of “super app.”. The idea, as conveyed by management to employees, is to concentrate efforts on a clearer product vision. During his journey, Sora symbolized a stage in which OpenAI was exploring how far it could take its models beyond text. Its closure, however, points to a different reading of the current moment. The company seems to be leaving this stage of expansion behind to focus on products with more immediate applications in the professional field. It is not so much a resignation as a rearrangement of priorities. In that setting, video loses weight compared to tools that fit better into your current strategy. Images | OpenAI In Xataka | Terence Tao is the best mathematician in the world: he has recognized that he is using AI to solve one of the Millennium Problems

Anthropic is winning the enterprise AI race, so OpenAI has a new plan: become Anthropic

by

OpenAI has thrown out everything that moved in AI. They have been launching everything: a video generatora web browser with AI, an image generator with Studio Ghibli styletools e-commerceetc. The logic was simple: whoever tries everything has more chances to get something right, but the result has ended up being the opposite. While OpenAI seemed to be everywhere, Anthropic was focused on a single site and It has managed to eat the land where it mattered most. Enough of trying everything. Fidji Simo, the board that Altman signed last summer, recently called upon employees to give them a message that is rarely heard in a company with the growth of OpenAI: their main rival was teaching them a lesson. What Anthropic is doing, Simo explained, should be a wake-up call for OpenAI, which has lost leadership among software developers and enterprise customers. “We cannot waste this moment because we are distracted by parallel projects,” he stressed. The hidden cost of doing a little of everything. The problem with shooting at everything that moves is not only the focus, but the resources that this implies. In companies that develop foundational models, the key resource is computing capacity, and at OpenAI that resource jumped from one team to another depending on the priorities of the day. The Sora team, for example, was integrated into the research division despite being one of the company’s most visible products. OpenAI was growing fast in too many directions, and that also created internal tensions over which project should be prioritized. Anthropic focused on one thing. As OpenAI diversified, Its main rival adopted a completely opposite strategy: few products, a lot of depth. Claude does not generate images or video, does not have his own browser and is not trying to create his own chips (at the moment). It is dedicated to creating foundational models and offering them both in web service mode and especially through APIs for companies and developers. Claude Code, its flagship product for programming, became a viral phenomenon among software engineers last fall, and has ended up consolidating itself as the reference tool among amateur developers—vibe coding is still going strong—and of course among technical teams in all types of companies. OpenAI strikes back. The response has not been long in coming: OpenAI launched last month a new version of Codexhis programming tool, and accompanied it with new GPT-5.4 which is precisely much more oriented towards professional environments. According to Simo itself, Codex already exceeds two million weekly active users, almost four times more than at the beginning of the year. To drive usage of its product, OpenAI is deploying engineers to consulting firms and business partners to accelerate adoption of these products. IPO on the horizon. Both OpenAI and Anthropic are taking clear steps towards an IPO which in fact could occur this year. That makes gaining share in the corporate market—which is the one that really pays, the one that signs contracts, and the one that justifies valuations—absolutely essential for these IPOs to be successful. The initial share price and real valuation of these companies will depend on how well positioned they are, and at OpenAI they want to recover the lost ground in the enterprise market. In the meeting with the staff Simo explained that “we are acting as if this were a code red.” The paradox of being the pioneer. OpenAI unleashed the AI ​​fever with the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 and made generative AI an almost everyday phenomenon. However, being the first usually has a trap, because it forces you to explore and diversify to maintain your reference position and that is very expensive. Anthropic came along later, saw where the real money was, and focused specifically on that sector. The student has surpassed the teacher, it seems, and at OpenAI they want to correct the strategy. What will happen to so much product?. It remains to be seen how this OpenAI strategy affects its entire product catalog. If you start focusing on developers and enterprise solutions, what will happen to your imager, Sora or Atlas? The structural tension between being a “research laboratory” and being a “product company” can pose a challenge for a company that naturally did not stop exploring new ideas to apply AI to them. Image | TechCrunch | Wikimedia Commons In Xataka | 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

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.