“Even o1 is losing money; o3 isn’t even available, and perhaps cannot be run at a profit.]”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
OpenAI's o1 is losing money.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Why I don’t share Sam Altman’s confidence that AGI is basically a solved problem, paragraph 17.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-sam-altman-thinks-that-agi-is-basically-784185-a2
We recorded 10 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-01-06. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- Even o1 is losing money
- present tense, as of early January 2025
Our interpretation
- Plain reading: in late 2024 to early January 2025, OpenAI's costs to serve o1 exceeded the revenue o1 brought in, across the ways it was sold (ChatGPT Plus, ChatGPT Pro, API).
- Ongoing state with no period named, so the period used is December 2024 to January 2025, the most recent stretch before the post.
Counts as supported if: An OpenAI disclosure or credible report that o1 as a product was unprofitable in that period, i.e. its serving costs exceeded its revenue.
Counts as contradicted if: An OpenAI disclosure or credible report that o1 was profitable or covered its costs in that period.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The Register reported that on 5 January 2025 Sam Altman posted that OpenAI was "currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions" (e1). The same report says the $200-a-month Pro tier, announced about a month earlier, gives unlimited access to the o1 pro model (e2). This points the same way as Marcus's claim. But it covers one subscription tier, not o1 as a product. The contract asks for o1's profit or loss across all the ways it was sold in December 2024 to January 2025. Neither item gives o1's revenue or serving costs at that level. Nothing in the evidence shows o1 was profitable either. The evidence does not support or contradict the claim as the contract reads it.
Limitations
- The evidence covers only the ChatGPT Pro tier. It does not cover o1 sold through other channels, such as ChatGPT Plus or the API.
- Altman's post gives no figures for Pro revenue or costs.
- If "o1" were read as only the o1 pro tier, Altman's statement would bear more directly on the claim. The outcome depends on that reading.
- OpenAI's company-wide losses are a different measure and do not isolate o1.
Evidence (2 items)
Context only: The Register,
"Insane thing: We are currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions!" he wrote in a post.
Why it matters here: Altman said OpenAI was losing money on the $200 Pro tier. That is one subscription tier, not o1 as a whole, so it is partial and context only.
- Where
- paragraph 2
- Publisher
- The Register
- Kind of source
- News report, unaudited
- Measures
- OpenAI, Profit or loss on ChatGPT Pro subscriptions, USD, company reported, 2024-12 to 2025-01
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: The Register,
For the extra cash, users gain unlimited access to its advanced voice, o1 pro model, "which uses more compute for the best answers to the hardest questions."
Why it matters here: Shows the loss-making Pro tier was built around o1 pro, which links Altman's remark to o1. It does not cover o1 sold through Plus or the API.
- Where
- paragraph 4
- Publisher
- The Register
- Kind of source
- News report
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
An OpenAI disclosure or credible financial report giving o1's serving costs against its revenue across all channels for December 2024 to January 2025.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Why I don’t share Sam Altman’s confidence that AGI is basically a solved problem
Even o1 is losing money; o3 isn’t even available, and perhaps cannot be run at a profit.]
- Where
- paragraph 17
- Published
- 2025-01-06
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-sam-altman-thinks-that-agi-is-basically-784185-a2: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-sam-altman-thinks-that-agi-is-basically-784185-a2.