Comment by gruez

>No. You should read the article

>> based on information that was provided to investors.

>It was OpenAI spreading their bullshit annualized revenue.

Did you read the article?

>The discrepancy arose from attempts by OpenAI’s own investors to produce a direct comparison with Anthropic’s annualised revenues, according to a person familiar with the matter. The pair calculate the figure in different ways, with Anthropic including the revenue from sales via cloud partners such as Amazon’s AWS and Google Cloud, while OpenAI does not.

>Investors’ efforts to “gross up” OpenAI’s annualised revenue prompted reports that the figure was around $40bn in July, said the person.

>OpenAI later told its backers that its annualised revenues had jumped more than 70 per cent since July, prompting reports that the figure was about $70bn at the end of September — a number the company did not deny.

>However, the new investor presentation shows close to $30bn annualised revenues in July.

Sounds like what happened wasn't that openai "spreading their bullshit annualized revenue", it was that they gave some vague figure that investors the media and other investors extrapolated, and it turned out that extrapolation was incorrect. Both the $40bn and $70bn figure did not come from openai directly.