Three dominant threads in the discussion
| Theme | What the commenters are saying | Representative quotes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Questioning the realism of OpenAI’s revenue & spending promises | Users doubt that the company can deliver the projected $280 bn revenue or the $600 bn cap‑ex, seeing the numbers as hype or “hand‑wavy” commitments. | “Must be nice to pull numbers out of one’s ass with zero consequence.” – paxys “I can’t believe that they’ll have $280 bn in revenue by 2030.” – tyre |
| 2. Infrastructure & cost feasibility concerns | Commenters point out that the scale of compute, energy, and hardware required is far beyond current supply chains and that the projections ignore real‑world constraints. | “These numbers were always out of line with basic infrastructure constraints.” – carefree‑bob “If they didn’t appropriately account for risk that the expectation would not pan out, well, that’s on them.” – dragonwriter |
| 3. Broader economic & societal impact | The conversation turns to what a 2/3 job‑loss scenario means for consumers, the role of UBI, and how wealth concentration might shape the future. | “If we wipe out 2/3 of jobs with AI, who is going to be buying all the stuff?” – ryandvm “UBI is a more of a convenient trick we use to suppress the part of our conscious that tells us ‘wiping out 2/3 of American jobs is Bad’.” – kylehotchkiss |
These three themes capture the main concerns—credibility of projections, practical feasibility, and the societal consequences—of the discussion.