In San Francisco, venture capitalist Jenny Xiao has observed a significant shift within her social networks as the artificial intelligence industry continues to thrive. 

Reflecting on her experiences, she remarked, "Five years ago, the people I met were living in modest apartments and were often working as budget-conscious AI researchers. Now it seems that almost every other weekend, someone is off vacationing in Hawaii or Switzerland."

While their friends earn $100 million, others are figuring out how to keep pace.

In a warm, golden sunrise on a rooftop terrace, a small group of sharply dressed entrepreneurs stands triumphantly on a raised golden pedestal, popping champagne beside towering stacks of bills that glint in natural light. In the foreground, a diverse set of professionals in business attire scramble up portable ladders, clutching binoculars and business plans, their determined faces tilted toward the lofty succeeders—capturing the divide between the $100 million earners and everyone trying to catch up.

Their friends are making $100 million. Everyone else is wondering how to catch up. - The Washington Post

- Jenny Xiao observes significant lifestyle changes among AI researchers in the Bay Area.  
- Formerly struggling, AI researchers now enjoy luxurious vacations and improved living conditions.  
- The artificial intelligence boom has drastically transformed social dynamics and wealth distribution.  

SAN FRANCISCO — Venture capitalist Jenny Xiao noticed a change in her Bay Area social circles as the artificial intelligence boom swelled in recent years.

“When I met these people back five years ago, they lived in the shittiest apartments and they were cheap AI researchers,” she said. “Now every other weekend someone’s in Hawaii [or] vacationing in Switzerland.”

Their friends are making $100 million. Everyone else is wondering how to catch up.

Throughout much of this year, the spotlight was firmly on Anthropic, with investors showing little interest in OpenAI. However, recent developments indicate a shift in preference: Anthropic remains a top choice, yet OpenAI is witnessing a notable increase in demand following the launch of its highly anticipated models and the success of its AI coding tool, Codex.

Dave McClure, the founder and managing partner at Practical Venture Capital, which specializes in acquiring secondary shares of pre-IPO firms, noted, "In the last month, there's been a resurgence of interest."

Both Anthropic and OpenAI are currently private companies, prompting most investors to acquire shares through secondary markets, where stock is provided by employees or early backers. This market lacks liquidity and is fragmented, rendering listed valuations approximate rather than reflective of ongoing public-market transactions.

McClure explained that earlier this year, OpenAI dealt with a slew of negative press regarding issues like sluggish growth, executive turnover, and competition from Anthropic, alongside a lawsuit involving Elon Musk. This resulted in a significant drop in demand for OpenAI shares during the early stages of the second quarter.

Though Anthropic still leads the market by attracting five interested buyers for every two looking for OpenAI shares, Glen Anderson, CEO of Rainmaker Securities, observed, "Just a month back, the demand for OpenAI was quite limited, but we're now seeing an uptick in interest."

OpenAI has yet to respond to requests for comments on the matter.

Growing Optimism Around New Releases

Secondary market traders consulted by Business Insider highlighted that OpenAI's recent model launches and the performance of Codex have rekindled interest among investors after a period dominated by Anthropic's momentum.

In June, OpenAI presented its flagship GPT-5.6 Sol model, which was more widely released this month alongside GPT-5.6 Terra and the budget-friendly GPT-5.6 Luna. Independent evaluations have positioned GPT-5.6 Sol among the leading models, though it still trails behind Claude's latest offerings, Mythos and Fable.

Adam Crawley, cofounder of Augment—an exchange for pre-IPO tech firms—reported, "Investors are returning to OpenAI."

Mark Klein, CEO of Neostellar, which provides access to late-stage startup investments, expressed optimism following an announcement from an OpenAI executive that the company has reached 9 million active users across two of its flagship platforms: Codex, designed for complex software coding tasks, and ChatGPT Work, a newly introduced cloud-based AI assistant that manages multi-step professional workflows.

Klein remarked, "The speed of this growth is significant, indicating that agentic AI is moving beyond its initial developer-focused audience into a wider array of professional applications. More generally, OpenAI seems to be dedicated to leveraging ongoing model enhancements to drive sustained usage in coding, research, and knowledge work."

OpenAI Offers Perceived Value

Previously, Anthropic had been recognized as the more affordable option, consistently trading at a lower valuation than OpenAI. But with the current market dynamics shifting, some investors now find it logical to hedge their Anthropic investments by incorporating the relatively less expensive OpenAI shares.

As reported recently by Business Insider, Anthropic's valuation ballooned to $1.2 trillion in the secondary market. Meanwhile, OpenAI's valuation has risen to $933 billion, reflecting a 20% increase over the past three months, according to Caplight, a secondary trading platform.

OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, acknowledged the company's challenges in recent times, attributing much of the responsibility to himself while indicating that a turnaround is on the horizon.

“We did not have our best last 12 months ever, and that’s mostly my fault, but we are on the brink of having our best 12 months to date," he shared on X.

Coinciding with Altman's comments, the Chinese AI startup Moonshot AI unveiled Kimi K3, claiming it to be the largest open-weight AI system globally.

McClure warned, “There continues to be pressure from other Chinese and open-source competitors, which may impact OpenAI's growth and profit margins, presenting significant challenges ahead.”

OpenAI experiences a 'revival' of interest in secondary markets.

A bustling outdoor tech bazaar bathed in warm morning sunlight, rows of wooden stalls draped with “OpenAI” text (no logo) banners displaying second-hand AI modules and used GPUs on price-tagged shelves. Adult buyers in casual attire excitedly examine hardware, handshake deals taking place over crates of digital tokens softly glowing above the tables—capturing the resurgence of interest in secondary markets.

OpenAI Has Seen a 'Resurgence' of Interest in Secondary Markets. - Business Insider

- OpenAI is experiencing renewed investor interest following the release of new models and Codex.  
- Anthropic still dominates investor demand, with five buyers for every two seeking OpenAI shares.  
- OpenAI's valuation has increased to $933 billion, now trading cheaper than Anthropic's $1.2 trillion.  

For most of this year, investors couldn't get enough of Anthropic while largely ignoring OpenAI. Now the tide is turning: although Anthropic remains the clear favorite, OpenAI is experiencing a significant surge in demand after it released highly touted new models and saw success with its AI coding agent, Codex.

"In the last month, there has been a resurgence in interest," said Dave McClure, founder and managing partner at Practical Venture Capital, which buys secondary shares in pre-IPO companies.

Since Anthropic and OpenAI have yet to go public, the vast majority of investors buy via secondary markets, where existing stock is sold by employees or early investors. The market is fragmented and illiquid, so quoted valuations are estimates rather than continuous public-market prices.

"OpenAI was facing a lot of negative stories in the first quarter related to things like slower growth, executives sick or leaving, Anthropic racing past them, and the Elon Musk lawsuit," McClure said. "This resulted in dramatically less demand in the early second quarter for OpenAI secondary."

Anthropic still dominates, drawing five buyers for every two seeking OpenAI shares, according to Glen Anderson, CEO of Rainmaker Securities, a merchant bank focused on private stock transactions.

"A month ago, we were seeing limited demand for OpenAI," he said. "We're still seeing breakneck demand for Anthropic, but now you're seeing OpenAI get bid on a lot more often."

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

Optimism about new models

Secondary traders Business Insider spoke with said that OpenAI's newest models and coding agent, Codex, have given buyers a reason to take another look after months in which Anthropic commanded most of the momentum.

OpenAI previewed its flagship GPT-5.6 Sol model in June and released it more broadly this month alongside GPT-5.6 Terra and the lower-cost GPT-5.6 Luna. Independent benchmarks have placed GPT-5.6 Sol near the top of the field, though still below Claude's latest Mythos and Fable models.

"Investors are coming back to OpenAI," said Adam Crawley, cofounder of Augment, an exchange for pre-IPO tech companies.

Mark Klein, president and CEO of Neostellar, which provides access to late-stage startups, said he has been encouraged by an OpenAI executive disclosing last week that the company has reached 9 million active users across two of its flagship enterprise platforms: Codex, an autonomous AI agent designed for complex software engineering and coding tasks, and ChatGPT Work, a newly launched cloud-based AI assistant that executes multi-step professional workflows.

"The pace of that growth is notable because it suggests agentic AI is expanding beyond its initial developer audience and into a much broader range of professional workflows," Klein said. "More broadly, OpenAI appears focused on translating continued model improvements into sustained usage across coding, research, and knowledge work."

OpenAI is the cheaper stock

Until this year, Anthropic was the clear bargain, consistently trading at a significant discount to OpenAI. Now that the dynamic has flipped, some traders say it makes sense to hedge their Anthropic positions by purchasing the relatively cheaper OpenAI stock.

Anthropic soared to a $1.2 trillion valuation on secondary markets, Business Insider reported last week. OpenAI is now trading at a $933 billion valuation, up 20% over the past three months, according to data from Caplight, a secondary trading platform.

Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took personal responsibility for the company's recent struggles while signaling a major comeback.

"We did not have our best last 12 months ever, which is mostly my fault, but we are about to have our best 12 months to date," he posted on X.

On the same day as Altman's admission, Chinese AI startup Moonshot AI released Kimi K3 , a powerful new model that the startup says is the largest open-weight AI system in the world.

"There continues to be pressure from other Chinese and Open-source competitors that will likely put pressure on OpenAI growth and margins, so they still have a tough hill to climb," said McClure.

OpenAI has seen a 'resurgence' of interest in secondary markets.

Apple has initiated legal action against OpenAI, alleging that the artificial intelligence firm has engaged in misconduct to persuade current and former Apple employees to divulge confidential information. OpenAI responded, stating it is “not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit.”

Recently on the TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, hosts Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I discussed the potential ramifications of this lawsuit on OpenAI's ambitions to enter the hardware sector with plans for a mobile smart speaker, as well as its intention to go public.

Sean pointed out that even if the court declines to issue any form of injunction, the lawsuit could still lead to delays in OpenAI's projects. “This situation naturally has the potential to slow down what OpenAI is working on, and I believe that was part of Apple's strategy. They don’t take these steps lightly,” he remarked.

With significant stakes at play, there's speculation on whether OpenAI will aim for a quick settlement or if it believes it can withstand another trial, having recently triumphed in court against Elon Musk. Kirsten suggests the latter is likely.

In our conversation, which has been condensed for clarity, Kirsten posed a question about the implications of a listening device potentially in everyone’s pocket, pointing to concerns over privacy. Sean expressed hesitance at the idea, noting that such devices wouldn't just pick up conversations of the user but those of people nearby. He highlighted the need for a reevaluation of social norms surrounding consent and privacy in public spaces.

Kirsten reminded us of the speculated device, which has been mentioned for some time, and its connection to the recent lawsuit Apple filed. Notably, this lawsuit outlines serious allegations against OpenAI, claiming misconduct aimed at OpenAI employees formerly associated with Apple, including the specific mention of Tang Tan, the chief hardware officer.

The essence of Apple's accusations revolves around the alleged theft of trade secrets, which could impact the development of competing hardware products. While the merits of the lawsuit remain to be explored, the discussion around it certainly promises intrigue.

Sean highlighted two points regarding implications for OpenAI. One major concern is the potential risk to whatever projects the company has ongoing, particularly in light of the impending IPO. OpenAI has confidentially filed for an IPO, with prospects of it launching soon. Sean emphasized that if a substantial portion of their potential market includes hardware, this lawsuit could complicate matters and influence the IPO valuation.

Anthony noted that Apple claims over 400 of its former employees are now part of OpenAI. Although both firms are large, this number indicates notable talent migration from Apple to OpenAI, suggesting a serious shift in intellectual resources. Additionally, he raised questions about the potential damage OpenAI could incur from public perception and branding, considering the prior trial brought forth some uncomfortable revelations, despite their legal victory.

Kirsten concurred with Anthony’s observations, predicting that OpenAI is likely prepared to face the challenges ahead, armed with insights from their earlier experiences in court.

Could an Apple lawsuit hinder OpenAI's hardware ambitions?

A dark, moody scene in a shadowy tech courtroom: on a worn wooden table lies a torn blueprint labeled “OpenAI” with intricate AI hardware circuits drawn across it. A massive gavel bearing a glowing Apple logo slams down onto the plans. Warm overhead spotlight cuts through the gloom, casting dramatic shadows and tension across the scene.

Can an Apple lawsuit derail OpenAI’s hardware plans? - TechCrunch

- Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for allegedly stealing trade secrets from its employees.  
- OpenAI claims there is no evidence supporting Apple's allegations and their lawsuit lacks merit.  
- The lawsuit may delay OpenAI's hardware plans and affect their upcoming IPO preparations.

Apple recently filed a trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing the AI company of a pattern of misconduct aimed at getting current and former Apple employees to share confidential information. (In response, OpenAI said it is “not aware of any evidence that this complaint has merit.”)

On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, Kirsten Korosec, Sean O’Kane, and I debated whether this lawsuit will cast a shadow over OpenAI’s much-discussed plans to get into the hardware business (starting with a mobile smart speaker) and go public.

“Even setting aside whether or not the court grants any kind of injunctive relief or any kind of restraining order over what OpenAI is doing, it just naturally can lead to that sort of situation where it’s going to cause some delays in what OpenAI is working on,” Sean suggested. “Which I’m sure was probably part of the reasoning behind Apple doing this. They don’t do this stuff willy nilly.”

With all those plans on the line, will OpenAI try to settle this as quickly as possible, or did it learn from its recent courtroom victory against Elon Musk that it can endure the cost and embarrassment of a trial? Kirsten, at least, predicts the latter.

Keep reading for a preview of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Kirsten Korosec: Sean, how do you feel about Sam Altman listening to you with a little device maybe in your pocket?

Sean O’Kane: I’m good. Maybe that’s predictable, but I’m good. No thanks.

We’ll get into it, I’m sure, but this is allegedly the first product that OpenAI has been working on in its hardware division with Jony Ive and company. They’ve been really coy ever since that weird video they put out last year of them sitting at that coffee shop or bar in San Francisco and sort of talking very vaguely about hardware and legacy devices, meaning laptops and phones. And so if this is the direction they’re headed in, all power to people who want to have somebody like that always listening to them. This is not going to be for me.

Anthony Ha: Part of what we have to remember about those kinds of devices is also that, depending on how mobile it is, it’s not just listening to you, it’s listening to the people around you. I might be fine with it — I’m not fine with it, but let’s say I was — but then if we met up in-person at Disrupt, then suddenly it might be listening to all of us.

There’s all kinds of social norms that are going to have to be renegotiated if these things become widespread. I think we should make fun of and criticize people who record other people without consent.

Kirsten: Well, I bring up the device that has been speculated about for a really long time, and we’ll see what it really ends up being once it’s officially introduced, but it’s important in the context of this lawsuit that Apple filed last Friday.

It was the biggest news of the week, certainly, and this is a trade secret lawsuit. It has some pretty wild allegations and we should very much emphasize these are allegations that have been filed in a complaint by Apple. But what it is accusing OpenAI of is a pattern of misconduct at the highest levels, specifically directed towards OpenAI employees who used to work at Apple. And in fact they’ve named the chief hardware officer Tang Tan in this lawsuit.

This is all important because Apple is accusing OpenAI of essentially stealing their trade secrets, but in the context of that, this could be then used for a competing hardware product. I’m wondering if maybe we don’t get into whether this lawsuit has merits, because we haven’t gone through full discovery, but what are your initial impressions of the lawsuit aside from the fact that wow, this is going to be entertaining?

Sean: Two things. One, this is a pretty big risk potentially to whatever it is OpenAI is working on. Even setting aside whether or not the court grants any kind of injunctive relief or any kind of restraining order over what OpenAI is doing, it just naturally can lead to that sort of situation where it’s going to cause some delays in what OpenAI is working on, which I’m sure was probably part of the reasoning behind Apple doing this. They don’t do this stuff willy nilly.

The other is that we think that OpenAI is — we know that they’ve filed confidentially for an IPO. We think it might happen as early as the end of this year, or early next year, if you believe Sam Altman’s cautious language around the IPO. And this just raises a whole bunch of questions around that because, on the one hand, we think their business right now is probably overwhelmingly the software; they’re not really factoring in any hardware business into that picture at the moment.

They’re about to go to the markets and they’re going to be pitching bankers and investors on where they think their addressable market should be, and if they have a big amount of that pegged to a potential hardware division and hardware products, this could be a huge risk to that and changes a lot of the calculus of sort of how the IPO gets priced. So that’s where my head’s at.

Anthony: One [allegation] that I assume that Apple must have pretty solid like numbers on is, they said more than 400 Apple employees now work at OpenAI. Granted, both of them are very large companies with many thousands or tens of thousands of employees. So as a percentage, it’s not necessarily huge. But that seems like a lot of people and a pretty serious talent drain.

And the other thing I’m wondering is related to Sean’s point. With the context of the potential IPO, how much damage did OpenAI ultimately take from a marketing and brand perspective from the trial it already went through? That it seemed to basically win, but there was a lot of not-terrible-but-kind-of-embarrassing dirty laundry that came out in the testimony. To what extent are they just like, “We do not want to go through that again”? Or did they take the lesson of, “Hey, we went through it and we survived and we’ll be okay if we have to do another trial with Apple”?

Kirsten: I fully predict the latter, by the way.

Can an Apple lawsuit derail OpenAI’s hardware plans?

The introduction of ChatGPT has brought significant challenges to the world of education. Its impact on teachers is profound, making their roles considerably more complicated than they were just a couple of years ago. It's important to reflect on this transformation. When students turn to AI for writing assistance, it poses a serious concern; they may miss out on essential writing skills. This reliance can strip away their unique voices, depriving them of the opportunity to express their truths and share their personal narratives. As a result, we risk diminishing the creative expression of potentially multiple generations.

Dave Eggers informed OpenAI employees that ChatGPT was 'muting a whole generation.'

A moody, low-light OpenAI boardroom with “OpenAI” in plain text stenciled on the back wall. At a simple podium, bestselling author Dave Eggers faces the room, his figure lit by a single overhead lamp. Around a long table, adult staff silhouettes slump in shadow. Above them hovers an oversized ChatGPT chat bubble with a zipper across its “mouth,” casting a long dark silhouette over empty chairs—symbolizing the silenced generation.

Dave Eggers told OpenAI staff that ChatGPT was ‘silencing an entire generation’ - The Verge

- ChatGPT's presence has made teaching significantly more challenging for educators.  
- Students using AI to write may lose essential writing skills and personal voice.  
- The reliance on technology could silence future generations' ability to express themselves.  

“The effect of ChatGPT on educators’ lives is catastrophic. Whether you intended to do it or not, you’ve made every teacher’s life infinitely more difficult than it was two years ago. So, just let that settle in… If students are using it to compose, which is the biggest tragedy of all, they’ll never learn to write. And their voice is stolen from them. They’ll never have the ability to say their truth and tell their own story. And that’s silencing an entire generation or two.”

Dave Eggers told OpenAI staff that ChatGPT was ‘silencing an entire generation’

An open letter regarding OpenAI's covert device

The creator of ChatGPT is developing a mysterious physical product, sparking both intrigue and debate within the tech community.

A public letter addressed to OpenAI’s hidden device

A sunlit minimalist desk by a tall window, a crisp open letter on parchment addressed to “OpenAI” in bold black type, beside a sleek, secretive gadget under soft natural light—its smooth metal shell subtly engraved with “OpenAI” text, gentle shadows hinting at hidden circuitry and a sense of quiet intrigue.

Joanna Stern: An open letter to OpenAI’s secret gadget - NBC News

- OpenAI is developing a secret physical device, details of which are unclear.  
- The project has sparked controversy and speculation within the tech community.  
- Features and functionality of the gadget remain undisclosed, leaving many questions unanswered.  

An open letter to OpenAI’s secret gadget

The ChatGPT maker is working on its own physical device, which is shrouded in mystery — and controversy.

An open letter to OpenAI’s secret gadget

In the ongoing legal confrontation between Apple and OpenAI, new developments have emerged. Apple suspects that additional former employees may have improperly shared sensitive company information with OpenAI, escalating the matter.

The Financial Times reports that Apple has issued legal preservation letters to about 40 ex-employees who are now working at OpenAI. These letters instruct the recipients to retain any documents or communications that could pertain to their previous roles at Apple.

Last week, Apple initiated a lawsuit against OpenAI, claiming that two of its former employees, now at OpenAI, disclosed proprietary trade secrets. Apple contends that this confidential information has been utilized by OpenAI in the development of its consumer hardware offerings.

OpenAI has categorically denied these allegations. Nevertheless, Apple’s lawsuit suggests that this situation could be just "the tip of the iceberg," hinting at broader concerns.

The issuance of these legal letters signals that Apple suspects there may be more individuals who misappropriated confidential information, apart from the two employees currently named in the lawsuit: Tang Yew Tan, a former Vice President of Product Design now serving as OpenAI's Chief Hardware Officer, and Chang Liu, who transitioned from being an iPhone engineer at Apple to OpenAI at the start of the year.

Apple has stated that over 400 of its former employees now work at OpenAI, raising questions about why these specific individuals are being targeted. Notably, they represent roughly 10% of Apple’s workforce that has shifted to the AI firm, making it crucial to watch how this situation develops as the legal proceedings progress.

Apple reportedly sends legal letters to numerous former OpenAI employees.

A dim, moody executive boardroom lit by a single overhead lamp. Centered on a polished mahogany table is a stack of crisp legal envelopes each stamped with a bold Apple logo. On the far wall, the word “OpenAI” appears in stark white text. Silhouetted figures at the table’s edge lean forward warily, shadows stretching behind them. Dark theme, dramatic lighting.

Apple sends legal letters to dozens of OpenAI defectors, report says - Mashable

- Apple has sent legal preservation letters to about 40 former employees at OpenAI.  
- The letters aim to safeguard documents related to potential information sharing with OpenAI.  
- Apple suspects more employees may have shared trade secrets beyond those currently sued.  

It's the latest salvo in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and OpenAI.

Apple appears to believe that additional former employees have shared company information with OpenAI.

Apple appears to believe that additional former employees have shared company information with OpenAI. Credit: Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Former Apple employees who now work at OpenAI have been put on notice.

According to a new report from Financial Times, Apple has sent legal preservation letters to roughly 40 former employees, which request that they save any documents or communication that could be relevant to their prior employer.

Last week, Apple filed a lawsuit against OpenAI alleging that two former employees who went on to work for the AI giant shared Apple's trade secrets. Apple believes that this confidential information was used by OpenAI to develop the consumer hardware products that the AI company is currently working on.

Mashable Light Speed Want more out-of-this world tech, space and science stories? Sign up for Mashable's weekly Light Speed newsletter. Loading... Sign Me Up Use this instead By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Thanks for signing up!

You May Also Like

OpenAI has denied the allegations, of course. However, in its lawsuit, Apple said that it believes this is "just the tip of the iceberg."

So, what do these new legal letters mean? It appears that Apple believes that there may be more former employees who misused confidential company information besides Tang Yew Tan and Chang Liu, the two employees whom Apple is currently suing. The legal letters could also serve as a warning from Apple, putting former employees on notice that Apple is watching their work closely. Based on the Financial Times report, the employees could also be subject to discovery requests as the lawsuit unfolds.

Tan is Apple's former Vice President of Product Design and currently works at OpenAI as the company's Chief Hardware Officer. Liu was formerly an iPhone engineer at Apple and left the company to join OpenAI at the beginning of the year.

According to Apple, more than 400 former employees now work at OpenAI. As more details emerge, it'll be interesting to find out Apple's reasoning in targeting these specific OpenAI employees, who make up about 10 percent of its former workers who jumped to the AI company.

Apple sends legal letters to dozens of OpenAI defectors, report says

OpenAI’s Chief Financial Officer, Sarah Friar, recently shared her framework for assessing the economic impact of investments in artificial intelligence. Unlike traditional software evaluations, which focus on metrics such as user counts and renewals, Friar emphasizes that AI effectiveness should be gauged by the actual value it generates.

In her blog post, Friar posed a crucial question for companies: Is the value derived from AI's outputs increasing at a pace that outstrips the costs incurred to generate them? She stresses that understanding this requires moving beyond surface-level statistics like cost per token.

Friar introduces a vital metric termed “useful intelligence per dollar.” This evaluation encompasses four components: the significance of the AI's output, the cost associated with each successful task, the reliability of the results, and whether increased usage enhances the value derived from each dollar spent.

To operationalize this, Friar advises that leaders should monitor the volume of quality-assured tasks completed by AI, total the expenses involved, and calculate the cost per successful task. They must also verify if stakeholders can rely on these outputs and whether the growth in high-quality work occurs at a rate that exceeds total costs, all while maintaining or improving quality. If these conditions are met, it indicates that each dollar invested in AI is yielding greater returns, with computational power playing a pivotal role in this dynamic.

“Our mission is to enhance this equation in every iteration: evolving better models, delivering quicker and more reliable outcomes, and reducing costs for essential tasks,” she articulated.

For OpenAI, compute resources are not merely an operational cost but a strategic asset. While the company does not publicly disclose detailed capital expenditure plans due to its private status, it had previously revealed the Stargate initiative, which outlines a comprehensive investment plan of $500 billion over four years to develop expansive AI infrastructure in the U.S. The initial funding phase aims for $100 billion, with a broader target of achieving a 10-gigawatt capacity by 2029. Remarkably, OpenAI has already surpassed its early milestones given the growing demand for AI solutions. Speculations suggest that the company could file for an IPO this summer or as late as 2027, with its current valuation standing at approximately $852 billion and poised to approach $1 trillion.

As Chief Financial Officers take on increasingly strategic roles, they are now expected to collaborate closely with CEOs in determining significant long-term investments, particularly in areas such as AI. 

Recently, McKinsey hosted its 24th Global CFO Forum, attracting around 100 finance executives from over 30 countries, representing leading organizations. Andy West, a senior partner at McKinsey and co-leader of its Strategy and Corporate Finance division, shared insights from an informal survey he conducted during the event, finding that about two-thirds of CFOs now oversee strategic functions, an increase from less than a third five years ago.

“AI has been a topic of discussion at this conference for a few years,” West noted. He observed a shift from last year’s experimentation with AI toward an emphasis on transformation across entire enterprises in the current discussions.

OpenAI's CFO: 4 questions to determine if your AI investment is yielding returns

A sunlit, modern corporate office with a sharp-dressed executive (the CFO) standing before a large, semi-transparent digital dashboard. Four glowing question-mark icons hover above distinct performance charts and budget graphs. Warm natural light streams through floor-to-ceiling windows, casting soft shadows. Subtle “OpenAI” text (no logo) is etched into the glass wall behind the CFO, anchoring the scene in a strategic, analytical mood.

OpenAI’s CFO: 4 questions that reveal if your AI spend is paying off - Fortune

- OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar emphasizes measuring AI's value through useful intelligence per dollar.  
- Effective AI metrics should track task success, costs, and reliability over time.  
- CFOs increasingly influence strategy, particularly in long-term AI investments and decision-making.  

Is your AI paying off? Today, OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar published the scorecard she uses for telling whether you are actually getting economic value from AI spend.

For years, software success was measured through adoption—seats, active users, and renewals, Friar notes. She argues that AI is different: it must be measured by the work it actually accomplishes.

“The basic economic question facing CFOs and other business leaders is whether the value of the work AI completes grows faster than the cost of producing it,” Friar wrote in a blog post. Answering that question, she says, requires going deeper than simple metrics like cost per token.

She argues that the metric that matters for AI is what she calls “useful intelligence per dollar.” It has four elements: Is AI completing work that matters? What does each successful task cost? Can people depend on the result? And does each dollar produce more value as usage grows?

In practice, that means leaders should track the volume of AI-completed work that meets a defined quality bar, add up the full cost of completing that work, and then divide by the number of successful tasks to get a cost per successful task. From there, the test is whether people can reliably depend on the output and whether, over time, high-quality completed work grows faster than total cost while quality holds or improves. If it does, each AI dollar is producing more value—and compute sits at the center of that equation, Friar explains.

“Our job is to make that equation better with every generation: more capable models, faster and more dependable results, and lower costs for the work customers need done,” she writes.

For OpenAI, a hyperscaler, compute is not just a technology expense—it is a strategic asset. As a private company, it does not publish formal capex guidance, but the Stargate initiative announced in January 2025 outlined a plan to invest up to $500 billion over roughly four years to build large-scale AI infrastructure in the U.S.—with the initial phase targeting about $100 billion and the broader buildout accelerating toward a 10-gigawatt capacity goal in the U.S. by 2029. Just over a year later, it has already surpassed that milestone, as demand for AI continues to accelerate. According to reports, OpenAI’s IPO could come as soon as this summer or as late as 2027. The company is already valued at $852 billion and approaching the $1 trillion range.

While finance chiefs have long led capital allocation and investor communication, they are increasingly expected to help determine strategy, including where the company places its biggest long-term bets, like AI spend, alongside the CEO.

McKinsey recently held its 24th annual Global CFO Forum, an exclusive gathering that brought together about 100 finance chiefs from over 30 countries, representing some of the world’s largest organizations. Andy West, a senior partner at McKinsey and global co-leader of the firm’s Strategy and Corporate Finance practice, told Fortune he conducted an informal poll, asking CFOs whether the strategy function now reports to them. About two-thirds raised their hands. Five years ago, it would have been less than a third, he said.

“We’ve been talking about AI at this conference for a couple of years now,” West said. Last year, finance leaders were still experimenting with AI. This year, the conversation shifted decisively toward enterprise-wide transformation, he said.

OpenAI’s CFO: 4 questions that reveal if your AI spend is paying off

Last Friday, Apple initiated a significant legal battle by filing a lawsuit against OpenAI, centering around the misappropriation of trade secrets. The allegations suggest a troubling pattern of behavior, extending up to the company's chief hardware officer, and point out that over 400 employees who previously worked at Apple are now part of OpenAI. As OpenAI navigates these serious accusations, its response has been notably cautious, especially given the challenging timing as the company is reportedly considering an initial public offering (IPO) later this year.

In a recent episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, hosts Kirsten Korosec, Anthony Ha, and Sean O’Kane explore the potential implications of this lawsuit on OpenAI's hardware development and its IPO plans. They also delve into a larger conversation arising from this week’s events: the critical issue of data trustworthiness concerning AI companies. 

For more insights, subscribe to Equity on platforms like YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, and Spotify. You can also connect with them on X and Threads at @EquityPod.

Apple's major lawsuit may hinder OpenAI's IPO ambitions.

Dark, moody trading floor at night: Sam Altman seen from behind in a sharp suit stands beneath a massive judge’s gavel poised to strike a glowing Apple logo suspended above. A scarlet-lit digital ticker stretches across the wall showing the word “OpenAI” in bold text with no logo. Use deep shadows, muted natural spotlighting, and a tense, foreboding atmosphere.

How Apple’s big lawsuit could disrupt OpenAI’s IPO plans - TechCrunch

- Apple filed a trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI alleging misconduct and employee poaching.  
- The lawsuit claims over 400 former Apple employees are now at OpenAI.  
- OpenAI’s IPO plans may be jeopardized by this ongoing legal dispute.

Loading the player…

Apple filed a trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI last Friday, and it’s not messing around. The complaint alleges a pattern of misconduct reaching all the way up to OpenAI’s chief hardware officer and claims more than 400 former Apple employees now work at the company. OpenAI’s response so far has been carefully hedged, and the timing couldn’t be worse with the company reportedly eyeing an IPO as early as later this year.

On this episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, hosts Kirsten Korosec, Anthony Ha, and Sean O’Kane dig into what the lawsuit could mean for OpenAI’s own hardware ambitions and IPO timeline, plus a bigger theme running through the week’s news: how much should anyone trust AI companies with their data?

Subscribe to Equity on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. You also can follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.

How Apple’s big lawsuit could disrupt OpenAI’s IPO plans

Scheduled for release later this month, this innovative model will be the first of its kind in the three-trillion-parameter category to be open-source. It allows external developers to download, operate, and modify it without restrictions.

China's Moonshot AI asserts that Kimi K3 can compete with OpenAI and Anthropic.

A bright research hall flooded with sunlight through high windows. In the center sits a sleek black AI tower labeled “Kimi K3” with the Moonshot AI logo and a small Chinese flag on its console. To its left, a translucent panel simply reads “OpenAI” in plain text; to its right, a large Anthropic logo glows softly, creating a face-off scene under warm natural light.

China's Moonshot AI claims Kimi K3 can rival OpenAI and Anthropic - BBC

- World's first open-source model with three trillion parameters launching this month.  
- Model can be freely downloaded, run, and customized by developers.  
- Represents a significant advancement in accessible AI technology for various applications.

Its arrival later this month will make it the world's first open-source model in the three-trillion-parameter class that can be freely downloaded, run and customised by outside developers.

China's Moonshot AI claims Kimi K3 can rival OpenAI and Anthropic

Kevin Koharki from CAE Consulting recently joined the Wall Street Journal’s "Take On the Week" to shed light on how traditional accounting practices can obscure critical insights in financial statements during the rapid evolution of AI technology.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have underscored a significant trend: AI is rapidly becoming a mainstream commodity. 

Firstly, the cost of AI solutions capable of handling most routine tasks has plummeted. This is driven by the emergence of lightweight models that can operate efficiently on both cloud platforms and personal devices, including the latest offerings from major players like Google, Apple, and various Chinese AI firms.

On Thursday, during a speech in Shanghai, Chinese President Xi Jinping advocated for the continued release of "open-weight" AI models—these are frameworks that anyone can adapt and utilize freely—as a strategic move to counterbalance the United States' supremacy in AI technology. Consequently, Chinese models such as GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 are beginning to rival the leading technologies from U.S. companies.

In another key development, Meta Platforms has demonstrated its potential to compete with top AI laboratories, OpenAI and Anthropic, by delivering high-performance models tailored for the lucrative coding market.

Additionally, the ongoing constraints related to computing power seem poised to improve, as new data centers come online and engineers discover ways to enhance AI delivery efficiency. In fact, the availability of tokens—the fundamental units of AI usage—is starting to meet the rising demand for various applications.

These advancements are encouraging for the global landscape. OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, referred to the ideal of intelligence becoming "too cheap to meter" just a year ago. Rather than replacing jobs, AI could actually enhance worker productivity and alleviate digital barriers in our increasingly interconnected lives.

Increased Access to AI Benefits China but Not So Much for OpenAI and Anthropic.

A dark, cinematic split scene under brooding clouds: on the left, a distant Chinese skyline at twilight with thin red-gold AI data streams weaving between skyscrapers and a single Chinese flag waving atop the tallest tower; on the right, a shadowy server room corridor lit by flickering amber lights, tangled cables along the floor, “OpenAI” text glowing faintly on a metal console and an Anthropic logo emblazoned on a nearby panel—dramatic chiaroscuro, tense atmosphere, digital painting style.

AI’s Wider Availability Is Good for China, Not Great for OpenAI and Anthropic - WSJ

- The price of AI technology has significantly decreased, making it widely accessible.  
- Chinese leader Xi Jinping advocates for open-weights AI models to challenge U.S. dominance.  
- Meta Platforms is competing effectively in the coding market against leading AI labs.  

Kevin Koharki of CAE Consulting joins WSJ’s Take On the Week to explain what traditional accounting methods hide from financial statements during the AI build-out. Photo: WSJ

A handful of remarkable things that recently happened in the world of artificial intelligence all point in one direction: AI is becoming a widely available commodity.

First, the price of AI good enough to accomplish most everyday tasks has dropped precipitously. This is due to lightweight models that run in the cloud and on our devices, including new ones from Google, Apple and Chinese AI companies.

On Thursday, Chinese leader Xi Jinping gave a speech in Shanghai advocating for the ongoing release of “open-weights” AI models—the kind that anyone can modify and use freely—as a counterbalance to U.S. dominance in AI. And now Chinese models including GLM 5.2 and Kimi K3 are catching up to the best that U.S. tech companies have to offer.

Second, Meta Platforms showed the world it could potentially compete with the two leading AI labs, OpenAI and Anthropic, on their own turf, delivering high-performing models for the lucrative coding market.

And third, the current computing-power bottleneck appears set to ease as more data centers come online, and engineers figure out how to deliver AI more efficiently. For some applications, the supply of tokens—the basic unit of AI use—is catching up with demand.

These developments are great for the world. OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman hailed intelligence “too cheap to meter” as a goal just a year ago. And rather than taking all the jobs, AI might actually boost productivity of many workers and potentially reduce digital friction in our modern lives.

AI’s Wider Availability Is Good for China, Not Great for OpenAI and Anthropic

In a recent discussion, Brian Barrett highlighted the importance of vocalizing differing opinions, particularly in the realm of AI's influence on politics and policy. Leah Feiger brought attention to the ongoing activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by Elon Musk, which have resurfaced in the news primarily due to a lack of transparency regarding its operations.

Currently, members of DOGE working within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have utilized AI to guide their policy-making. While this information was uncovered last year, the situation has become more concerning as HUD has been denying numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests aimed at uncovering how these AI tools were developed and applied in decision-making processes. This information came to light through documents obtained by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization. It seems impractical that a year later, after the initial revelations, the agency continues to withhold crucial details. HUD's recent approach exemplifies a broader trend of governmental stonewalling that stymies accountability, particularly in understanding DOGE's activities, their access to information, and the associated regulations that may have been overlooked.

Zoë Schiffer pointed out the complex nature of AI tools, which can be beneficial if used for legitimate purposes such as research, yet can also raise serious concerns about discrimination and ethical implications. The public is rightly entitled to clarity on how these technologies are employed, yet they are currently facing significant barriers in accessing information.

Feiger emphasized that HUD employees disclosed to WIRED that DOGE personnel were leveraging AI to review agency regulations and potentially identify contracts for elimination. The AI was essentially tasked with sorting through a comprehensive list of contracts to determine which ones could be cut, although details about which specific contracts were affected and the methodology employed remain elusive. Adding to the complexity of this situation are individuals like Christopher Sweet, a third-year student at the University of Chicago, and Scott Langmack, who joined DOGE from the property technology firm Kukun. Their involvement raises questions regarding the expertise on hand to manage such substantial government initiatives, especially when utilizing AI for critical policy decisions. As investigations continue, the situation becomes increasingly frustrating, especially for those who will be directly impacted by the resulting housing policies in the years to come.

Apple's Lawsuit Against OpenAI, New York's Action on Data Centers, and Key Information on Cyclosporiasis

A dramatic triptych in moody natural light:  
Left panel—an ornate courtroom in shadow, a giant carved Apple logo looming above the judge’s bench; opposite, a lone figure seen from behind facing a wall-mounted “OpenAI” text (no logo).  
Center panel—a dusky Manhattan skyline pierced by a cluster of data-center towers, a single New York state flag fluttering atop one building.  
Right panel—a gloved hand holds up a glass slide under a microscope beam, revealing the ghostly outline of the Cyclospora parasite in a petri dish.

Why Apple Sued OpenAI, New York Takes on Data Centers, and What to Know about Cyclosporiasis - WIRED

- HUD is denying FOIA requests about AI use in policy decisions by DOGE employees.  
- AI tools may introduce discrimination and other issues, raising public accountability questions.  
- DOGE's AI was used to identify contracts for potential cuts, details remain unclear.  

Brian Barrett: Yeah. That's a good point. In some ways it's as if not more important to be really vocal and visible saying, "Hey, we don't all think the same about this." Yeah, regardless of the outcome and the money behind it.

Leah Feiger: Speaking of AI in politics, I'm going to talk about one of my favorite topics as always, DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency, started by Elon Musk. It's still in the news, and it is in the news for a very specific reason for us this week, which is we can't get more news out about it. Members of DOGE who are working at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, used AI to inform policy decisions. This is something that we were reporting on and figured out last year, but now the agency appears to be denying Freedom of Information Act requests for information on the development and the use of the AI tools and the way they actually informed these policy decisions. This all came out according to documents obtained by a FOIA request from Democracy Forward, which is a nonprofit legal organization. And it's pretty concerning. You would assume that a year after some of this dust has settled that we'd be able to get a little bit more information. And from government agency to government agency, HUD really is the latest example here. We've been just getting tons of stonewalling on additional further details as to what DOGE has been up to, the access they had, the materials they used. It's very much about the fact that they used AI, but it's also how did they use AI? What is still left in the systems? And what were the regulations there? What got blown by? Who knew about this? And these are so many important details that are just missing. And especially now as people are going back and trying to untangle the spaghetti web that was left in their steed. It's very frustrating for employees, understandably, and frankly should be frustrating for anyone who is going to be impacted by housing policy in the next 20 years in America.

Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. I mean, I think it speaks to an issue that we're all grappling with, which is AI tools can be used in ways that are very legitimate and helpful. If you told me that they were using AI for research and checking their sources, I would be like, "Seems smart, cool." And then it can be used in ways that are possibly introducing discrimination. It could be used in ways that some would call cheating. And I think the just huge range and the types of tools available, they create a lot of questions, and questions that I would say the public is entitled to some form of answers on. But like you said, right now we're being a little bit stonewalled.

Leah Feiger: You're 100 percent right, Zoë. And in this specific case, HUD employees who spoke to WIRED at the time that this all was coming out found that these DOGE employees were using AI to identify agency rules for potential rescission or contract cancellations. And this was happening across government. But again, I just want to be so clear about what this means as they were saying, "Here's this massive list of contracts. What do you think we should cut here?" And just kind of like, "Let's see what happens." Again, we don't have more details on everything that got cut, the way that it got cut, the way that it all went down, what we're missing now as a result. It's all still coming together, and that makes it so much more unfortunate. And especially when you're also thinking about the people that were doing this, that were actually employing the AI. WIRED had reported that Christopher Sweet, who was then a third-year student at the University of Chicago, was one of the people really involved in this effort, as was Scott Langmack, who came to DOGE from a property technology startup called Kukun. So it's not like these were people who were (A) even necessarily that well-versed in government work by any means. But then additionally, the idea of going through massive government contract lists with AI and being like, “Yep, good to go.”

While their friends earn $100 million, others are figuring out how to keep pace.

More from OpenAI

OpenAI experiences a 'revival' of interest in secondary markets.

Could an Apple lawsuit hinder OpenAI's hardware ambitions?

Dave Eggers informed OpenAI employees that ChatGPT was 'muting a whole generation.'

A public letter addressed to OpenAI’s hidden device