Your options regarding privacy are important to us. By selecting 'Accept all', you consent to the use of technical identifiers, as well as your browsing and search data, for purposes such as analytics, personalized advertising, content customization, advertising and content measurement, audience research, and the development of services. By clicking this option, both we and our partners—249 affiliates within the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework—will also gather and/or access information on your device through cookies. This includes using precise geolocation and other personal data to enhance analytics and tailored content.

If you prefer not to allow us and our partners to utilize cookies and your personal data for these extended purposes, please select 'Reject all'.

Alternatively, if you wish to tailor your preferences, you may click on 'Manage privacy settings'.

You hold the right to withdraw your consent or alter your choices at any moment by navigating to the 'Privacy and Cookie settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' available on our sites and applications. To learn more about our use of personal data, please refer to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

Your options for privacy

A cozy home workspace bathed in warm morning sunlight: a wooden desk with a laptop and smartphone side by side. On the phone’s screen, vivid toggles for camera, microphone, location and data sharing — some set to “allow,” others to “deny.” Above the devices, translucent icons of a padlock, an eye, and a location pin drift like digital confetti. An adult hand hovers over one slider, poised to make a choice.

Canada province preparing lawsuit against OpenAI over school shooting - Yahoo

- Users can accept or reject cookies for personalized advertising and analytics data.  
- Consent can be managed through 'Manage privacy settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' links.  
- Users may withdraw consent or change privacy choices at any time.  

Your privacy choices

Accept all', we and technical identifiers and browsing and search data, for analytics, personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, and audience research and services development. If you click '', we and our partners , including 249 who are part of the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework, will also store and / or access information on a device (in other words, use cookies) and use precise geolocation data and other personal data such asand browsing and search data, for analytics, personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, and audience research and services development.

If you do not want us and our partners to use cookies and personal data for these additional purposes, click 'Reject all'.

If you would like to customise your choices, click 'Manage privacy settings'.

You can withdraw your consent or change your choices at any time by clicking on the 'Privacy and Cookie settings' or 'Privacy dashboard' links on our sites and apps. Find out more about how we use your personal data in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

Your privacy choices

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

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.”

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

Ryan Beiermeister has officially stepped into the role of partner at Founders Fund, a move she announced on Monday. Beiermeister is a recognized figure in Silicon Valley, primarily for her previous two-year stint as Vice President of Product Policy at OpenAI, where she played a key role during the company's rapid ascent, marked by the explosive popularity of ChatGPT.

Her tenure at OpenAI ended abruptly in February when she was reportedly dismissed after voicing concerns regarding a controversial feature dubbed “adult mode” for ChatGPT, which was intended to allow adult content interactions. Reports from The Wall Street Journal indicated that her termination was linked to accusations of sexual discrimination from a male colleague, an assertion Beiermeister has vehemently denied, calling such claims “absolutely false.” Meanwhile, in March, OpenAI announced it would discontinue its plans for the adult mode feature.

In a notable pivot in her career, Beiermeister has been gaining attention for her strategic prowess on Founders Fund's YouTube show, “Mafia,” a game where players must identify undercover Mafia members before they eliminate the rest of the group.

She showcased her skills while competing against notable figures including Sam Altman from OpenAI, Palmer Luckey from Anduril, and Dylan Field from Figma, among others. An intense moment in the debut episode featured a tense exchange between her and Altman, where each hinted that the other could be the murderer, eliciting laughter from those aware of their professional backgrounds.

On social media, some speculated that participating in the Mafia game was a subtle job interview for Beiermeister. However, according to Mike Solana, the chief marketing officer at Founders Fund and the host of the game, this was not the case. He clarified that while her gameplay was noteworthy, it did not form part of her interviewing process. Beiermeister has maintained a close relationship with Trae Stephens since their days together at Palantir, and she’s been familiar with the Founders Fund team for several years.

Her analytical yet calm approach during the game likely didn't hurt her chances, as she has been friends with Stephens for over a decade. Before her time at OpenAI and Meta, Beiermeister spent her early career at Palantir, founded by Peter Thiel, the same individual behind Founders Fund. 

Now as a partner at Founders Fund, Beiermeister aims to support startups in sectors where innovation is both challenging and impactful. “The companies that will define the next twenty years are being built in the categories where product engineering is hardest and the stakes are highest — AI infrastructure and agentic systems, defense, energy, climate, biotech, the regulated frontier," she shared on LinkedIn. "To the founders in these domains, especially if you don’t fit the standard mold: I want to talk to you and my inbox is open."

Founders Fund brings on ex-OpenAI executive Ryan Beiermeister, not just for her 'Mafia' abilities.

A sunlit, modern investment office lobby with floor-to-ceiling glass walls. A confident professional woman (Ryan Beiermeister) strides toward a large, metallic Founders Fund logo mounted on a warm wood-paneled wall. Behind her, a sleek digital screen simply reads “OpenAI” in plain text with no logo. On a nearby round glass table, a subtle stack of playing cards and a single poker chip wink at her rumored “Mafia” skills—yet her forward-focused posture and the golden morning light underscore a new chapter of ambition and leadership.

Founders Fund hires former OpenAI exec Ryan Beiermeister (and not because of her 'Mafia' skills) - TechCrunch

- Ryan Beiermeister has joined Founders Fund as a partner, effective immediately.  
- She was previously VP of Product Policy at OpenAI, fired over controversy.  
- Beiermeister aims to support startups in challenging sectors like AI and biotech.  

Ryan Beiermeister has joined Founders Fund as a partner, she announced on Monday. Beiermeister is well-known in Silicon Valley for a number of reasons. For one, prior to this role, she spent about two years as VP of Product Policy at OpenAI as it became a household name, shortly after ChatGPT became the fastest-growing app in history.

That career choice ended abruptly in February when she was reportedly fired after objecting to a planned ChatGPT feature called “adult mode,” which was going to allow adults to use the chatbot for erotica. The Wall Street Journal reported that her firing involved an accusation by a male colleague of sexual discrimination, although Beiermeister called any allegation that she discriminated against anyone “absolutely false.” In March, OpenAI reportedly scrapped plans for adult mode.

More recently, Beiermeister has become well-known in Silicon Valley for her skillful strategy in a Founders Fund YouTube show called “Mafia.” The game involves discovering which players are secret Mafia killers before those players can “kill” the rest of the players.

Beiermeister played the game against OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Anduril’s Palmer Luckey, Figma’s Dylan Field, Flexport’s Ryan Petersen, Founders Fund’s Trae Stephens, and several others.

One of the most intense scenes in Episode One involved her and Altman each saying that if they were found dead, it would mean the other was the killer. Those who knew the history laughed.

Some commented on Twitter that maybe the whole Mafia game was really a job interview for her. The game, according to the firm’s chief marketing officer and the game’s MC, Mike Solana (who brought the game to the firm), is often played at Founders Fund retreats.

However, it wasn’t. “Though she is an excellent Mafia player, that wasn’t part of her interview process. She has been close with Trae Stephens since they worked together at Palantir and has been friendly with our team for years,” a Founders Fund spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Though the way Beiermeister played the game — coolly, making analytical observations and arguments about who might be Mafia — couldn’t have hurt her prospects.

Still, Beiermeister has known Trae Stephens for at least a decade. Prior to her role at OpenAI, and at Meta before that, she spent her formative years at Palantir, the big data company founded by the VC firm’s founder, Peter Thiel. Stephens also worked at Palantir in its early days.

Beiermeister says she’s most interested in backing the kinds of startups that Founders Fund is known to gravitate toward.

“The companies that will define the next twenty years are being built in the categories where product engineering is hardest and the stakes are highest — AI infrastructure and agentic systems, defense, energy, climate, biotech, the regulated frontier,” she wrote in a LinkedIn post. “To the founders in these domains, especially if you don’t fit the standard mold: I want to talk to you and my inbox is open.”

Founders Fund hires former OpenAI exec Ryan Beiermeister (and not because of her ‘Mafia’ skills)

Ed Zitron, a researcher and noted skeptic of artificial intelligence, suggests that the current AI hype is less about a widespread boom and more about a singular entity: OpenAI. As the company behind ChatGPT approaches a significant initial public offering (IPO), Zitron argues that it is this firm that has generated most of the public and investor interest in AI. He warns that if OpenAI were to fail, the repercussions would be reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis triggered by the fall of Lehman Brothers.

In a report released last month, Zitron outlined what he perceives as serious financial instability at OpenAI. In a July 15 post, he remarked, "The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 came at the perfect time for a tech industry that had run out of ideas,” asserting that OpenAI's success has fueled a lavish obsession with AI. Zitron also pointed out that OpenAI's main competitor, Anthropic, owes its existence to the influence and funding that emanated from OpenAI's prominence and the competitive landscape shaped by major tech players.

He asserts that the AI bubble hinges on OpenAI's continued operation and the significant attention it has garnered from various stakeholders in the tech ecosystem. "As long as OpenAI remains intact, the bubble persists," he stated, warning that its downfall could mark a critical turning point akin to the Lehman Brothers collapse, signaling both an end to one era and the dawn of a new one.

While he does not predict the timing or specific cause of an OpenAI failure, Zitron envisions it as a pivotal moment that would destabilize markets that have rallied around AI investments and the broader economy that has benefited from extensive capital expenditures by companies chasing AI advancements. He speculated that if OpenAI halted payments to service providers like CoreWeave and Oracle, those entities might struggle to meet their financial obligations. Additionally, Zitron foresees that if OpenAI were to eliminate its free ChatGPT tier and raise user fees, it could dissuade future investments in AI startups.

"I believe that OpenAI's collapse would send shockwaves throughout the stock market, leading to a significant downturn as investors come to terms with the reality that the AI bubble has burst," he warned. He characterized the financial outlay fueling the AI boom as "the greatest capital misallocation in history," echoing sentiments expressed by fellow AI researcher Gary Marcus, who has similarly voiced concerns about the sustainability of the current AI landscape.

'Ed Zitron claims OpenAI is the Lehman Brothers of AI, labeling the AI bubble as an OpenAI bubble.'

A moody, high-contrast nighttime scene: a towering skyscraper in the style of the Lehman Brothers building bears a glowing neon sign reading “OpenAI” (text only, no logo). Cracks spiderweb across its facade as a gigantic translucent bubble above it fractures and begins to collapse, sending shards etched with lines of code raining down onto the dark, stormy city below. Dramatic low-key lighting and smoldering embers hint at an impending financial catastrophe.

'The AI bubble is an OpenAI bubble:' Ed Zitron says the ChatGPT maker is the Lehman Brothers of AI - Business Insider

- Ed Zitron claims the AI bubble centers solely around OpenAI, impacting investor interest.  
- He warns OpenAI's potential failure could trigger a market collapse akin to Lehman Brothers.  
- Zitron argues that misallocation of capital fuels the unsustainable AI bubble's growth and risks.  

The AI bubble is simple, Ed Zitron says, because it's really a bubble in a single company: OpenAI.

As the ChatGPT maker heads toward a momentous IPO, the researcher and AI skeptic says that OpenAI is the only reason anyone cares about AI at all—and it's failure would spark a collapse similar to the one set off by Lehman Brothers when the bank fell apart in 2008.

Zitron has repeatedly sounded the alarm on AI broadly and OpenAI specifically, publishing a report last month that he said shows OpenAI's finances are in turmoil.

"The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 came at the perfect time for a tech industry that had run out of ideas," he wrote in a post on July 15. "The existence of OpenAI justified an era of mania and opulence," he added, noting that OpenAI is also the reason that it's biggest competitor, Anthropic, exists at all. That's partly because it's founders came from OpenAI but also because it received funding from warring tech titans trying to plant their own flags on the AI frontier by supporting OpenAI's top rival.

The AI bubble, he argues, is really only possible because of Sam Altman's company and the attention it has commanded from the public, investors, and the ecosystem of companies that have thrived in its wake.

Related video How AI takes a toll on the freelancers who train, test, and refine it

"The only reason this has kept going so long is that OpenAI has yet to collapse," he wrote. "Its failure would be a watershed moment — the Lehman Brothers of the AI bubble, and an event that would define the end of one epoch, the start of another."

Zitron doesn't have a prediction for how or when OpenAI could go bust, he sees it being a watershed event that will upend markets that have rallied around the AI trade and the economy that's been boosted by endless capex from companies pursuing their AI ambitions.

If OpenAI were to stop paying infrastructure companies like CoreWeave and Oracle, for instance, Zitron theorizes that those firms would be unable to service their own debts. If it struggles further, OpenAI could end the free tier of ChatGPT and raise costs for users, with the ultimate effect of its troubles being that investors are discouraged from investing in AI startups altogether.

"I believe that once OpenAI collapses it'll have a violent, punishing effect on the entire stock market, a precursor to a much greater drawdown as everybody accepts that the AI bubble has burst," he added.

Zitron said the spending that's powered the AI bubble represents the "the greatest capital misallocation in history," a phrase used verbatim by fellow AI researcher Gary Marcus, who has also raised major concerns about the AI bubble.

'The AI bubble is an OpenAI bubble:' Ed Zitron says the ChatGPT maker is the Lehman Brothers of AI

This week, OpenAI made headlines by introducing its inaugural piece of hardware: a compact keyboard priced at $230. However, not as widely reported is the launch of a unique addition in their product lineup—a ChatGPT-branded basketball.

The basketball is part of the “Pause. Play. Prompt.” initiative, which serves as a tangible reminder that creativity goes beyond our digital devices, as noted in its product description. Although details about this campaign are scarce on OpenAI's website, it seems to be a call for users to engage in more outdoor activities rather than remain glued to screens all day.

This move reflects an increasing awareness among tech firms about the importance of mental health.

Retailing for $70—or about 56 million input tokens for GPT-5—the basketball is constructed entirely from rubber, making it more suitable for outdoor play compared to the pricier leather balls typically seen in professional settings. It’s refreshing to see OpenAI promote active outdoor gameplay, especially as the generative AI sector continues to heighten carbon footprints.

However, it's challenging to identify the ideal audience for the ChatGPT basketball. One might wonder who would bring such an item to a local court. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable appearing with a ChatGPT basketball on a Philadelphia community court, no matter the cost. It might hold a spot as ironic merchandise if obtained for free at a tech conference, akin to cherished quirky items from past events.

In defense of this basketball, it’s worth noting that the AI sector isn’t always the best at aligning products with consumer demand. I’m still remembering the ill-fated Humane AI Pin.

In addition to the basketball, OpenAI has rolled out a selection of merchandise featuring motivational slogans, such as “Good research takes time.” This could be ideal for startup founders facing pressure from investors for quicker results. The $175 quarter-zip top with “research” elegantly scripted could also appeal, although its description, which nostalgically evokes “our days in academia,” might alienate the more self-taught coding enthusiast crowd. And really, can an inanimate object truly reminisce about one’s academic experiences? Should we expect coherent sentences from those who compose their emails with ChatGPT?

All said and done, there's no harm in a little corporate merchandise. If OpenAI ever considers commissioning ceramic artists to craft functional dinnerware that celebrates its heritage, I’d love to throw my name in the hat.

What is the reason behind OpenAI's sale of a ChatGPT basketball?

A bright sunlit modern retail setting: a wooden display table under a skylight holds a sleek orange basketball stamped with “ChatGPT” in bold, sporty lettering. Behind it, a minimalist wall sign reads OpenAI (text only, no logo). Warm natural light casts soft shadows across the ball’s pebbled texture. An adult shopper’s hand reaches in, pausing mid-air as if surprised by software spilling into sports gear—inviting viewers to wonder why a ChatGPT basketball exists.

Why is OpenAI selling a ChatGPT basketball? - TechCrunch

- OpenAI launched a $230 mini keyboard and a $70 ChatGPT basketball for creativity.  
- The basketball promotes outdoor play and is designed for weather resistance.  
- OpenAI's merchandise includes inspirational items geared towards startup founders and AI enthusiasts.  

You may have heard that OpenAI released its first piece of hardware this week: a $230 mini keyboard. You may not have heard that alongside this “command center for agentic work,” OpenAI also released a ChatGPT basketball.

“This basketball comes from the Pause. Play. Prompt. campaign, a physical reminder that creativity doesn’t just live on our screens,” the product listing explains. I was not able to find any other mention of the “Pause. Play. Prompt.” campaign on OpenAI’s website, but I gather that this is OpenAI’s way of telling people not to spend all day on Codex.

Who says tech companies aren’t thinking about our mental health?

The basketball will cost you $70, or about 56 million input tokens for GPT-5. It’s a 100% rubber ball, which is a better fit for outdoor play due to its weather resistance than the more expensive leather balls you’ll find on professional basketball courts. I am pleased to know that OpenAI is envisioning a world where playing sports outside is possible, even as the generative AI boom accelerates tech companies’ carbon emissions.

It’s difficult to imagine the target customer for the ChatGPT basketball. Who is this for?

Wander outside the safety of an AI-pilled, tokenmaxxing Silicon Valley and one might worry about getting bullied for bringing a ChatGPT basketball to the court. You could not pay me $70 to walk onto a community court in Philadelphia with this ChatGPT basketball. (If it were free swag from a conference, it could pass as ironic — I cherish my “#FACEBOOK” tote, which is airbrushed like a 2000s bar mitzvah party favor.)

In defense of the ChatGPT basketball, the AI industry isn’t exactly known for its product-market fit instincts. May the Humane Ai Pin rest in peace.

Image Credits:OpenAI

Alongside that $70 artifact, OpenAI is also selling a line of merch with inspirational reminders, like “Good research takes time,” which I would argue is the perfect attire for a startup founder meeting with investors who are demanding faster growth. There’s also a certain je ne sais quoi to the $175 quarter-zip that says “research” in cursive. The product description says that “it features a crisp collar that reminisces on our days in academia,” which could alienate the “I never went to college because I’m a coding savant” crowd. (Also, can an object reminisce on your days in academia? Should I expect grammatically sound sentences from people who write their emails with ChatGPT?)

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of company swag, though. If OpenAI is looking to commission any ceramic artists to honor company history through functional tableware, I would like to throw my hat in the ring.

Why is OpenAI selling a ChatGPT basketball?

Investors looking to engage with future IPOs from tech giants like OpenAI and Anthropic are facing a unique roadblock: there’s no direct method for the everyday person to buy shares ahead of these launches. In response, some individuals are turning to an unconventional market, purchasing used apparel—such as t-shirts and hoodies—that were originally given to employees or attendees at events, now fetching impressive resale prices.

On platforms like eBay, there's a noticeable increase in demand for merchandise branded by these AI companies. For example, a collection of OpenAI Codex items, which includes a hat and a hoodie, is being listed for as much as $475, while a pre-owned OpenAI sweatshirt recently sold for $246.99. Similarly, an Anthropic pen reached a selling price of $39.99, and an employee t-shirt from OpenAI garnered $120.

Mitchell Brody, who operates an eBay t-shirt business with his daughter, comments, “I believe these will become the vintage concert shirts of the future.” They currently feature an employee-issued OpenAI tee priced at $249.99, with Brody envisioning a future where people proudly share stories about their unique OpenAI merchandise from this era.

Conversations with various sellers reveal a striking trend: items from OpenAI and Anthropic are significantly more valuable compared to merchandise from other tech firms. For instance, an employee tank top from Google is available for only $24.95, and even a SpaceX polo shirt is listed for a mere $11.92. 

This trend resembles another recent occurrence when Silicon Valley Bank’s merchandise spiked in value amidst its financial turmoil; however, interest rapidly declined once the situation stabilized. One seller noted that items tied to companies experiencing dramatic highs and lows, like SVB, often create a temporary bubble that eventually bursts.

While a t-shirt or pen won't replace the prestige of company stock or influential titles on a resume, they fulfill a social desire to belong to the unique culture of Silicon Valley. Many buyers hail from regions outside major tech hubs, such as Ohio and upstate New York, where ownership of these exclusive items provides a sense of connection to the tech world.

The real draw for these garments isn’t merely their branding but their association with limited production runs tied to significant product launches or achievements within the companies. To validate authenticity, buyers pay close attention to manufacturing tags and original packaging. Many items, often sourced from thrift stores or gifted by industry friends, carry a narrative of insider knowledge.

“The most sought-after shirts are those issued to employees—they carry an ‘insider’ appeal,” Brody points out, highlighting that shirts tied to specific SpaceX missions, for instance, command higher prices. 

Capitalizing on the growing buzz around its merchandise, OpenAI recently launched OpenAI Supply Co., which was initially intended for staff but is now open to the public. This online store offers custom garments and highlights limited-edition items, akin to exclusive sneaker releases, further solidifying the connection between their brand identity and consumer culture.

Historically, interest in Silicon Valley memorabilia has surged during times of company turmoil. From the early days of the dot-com bubble to post-IPO phenomenon items from firms like Theranos and WeWork, many notable tech artifacts have achieved significant resale values. For example, items associated with Apple and its founder Steve Jobs have auctioned for millions—an indication that nostalgia and historical significance have made tech memorabilia a lucrative market.

Bobby Livingston, executive vice president at RR Auction, describes collectibles from notable technological breakthroughs as "high-end participation trophies," valuing them as tangible connections to pivotal moments in innovation.

Though not every tech company’s merchandise carries equal weight—failed ventures may go unnoticed in history—items from successful firms like Apple remain revered. According to Livingston, it may take decades before AI-related items reach their own recognition in the world of collectibles. Yet, he notes early signs of market enthusiasm, such as signed graphics cards from Nvidia fetching substantial prices.

For those hoping to profit quickly, specialized items, particularly those from Anthropic, tend to be scarce. Buyers like Alejandro Navia have even tailored their plans just to acquire unique pieces, such as the sought-after “thinking” baseball hat from Anthropic, which typically sells for $50 to $100 on resell platforms. Although Navia initially considered selling his hat for profit, he ultimately opted to keep it, valuing the experience and pride it represents within the tech community.

The Thriving Resale Market for Used OpenAI and Anthropic Merchandise

An outdoor flea market stall in warm morning sunlight: a weathered wooden booth displays gently worn OpenAI hoodies, mugs, and stickers under a hand-painted “OpenAI” sign (text only), while a large Anthropic logo banner hangs behind. Handwritten “used” price tags dangle from each item as a vendor hands a collector a scuffed OpenAI notebook amid rows of secondhand swag.

The Booming Secondary Market For Used OpenAI and Anthropic Swag - Forbes

- AI company swag, including t-shirts and hoodies, is reselling for hundreds of dollars.  
- OpenAI's merchandise is viewed as a future collectible, akin to vintage concert shirts.  
- Speculative swag trends in Silicon Valley mirror past tech memorabilia resale phenomena.  

N ormal people can’t buy shares of OpenAI or Anthropic ahead of the companies’ looming IPOs. So some are buying into a different kind of secondary transaction: used t-shirts and hoodies that were doled out to employees or conference-goers as a perk, that are now reselling for hundreds of dollars.

On eBay, there’s a bubble in AI company swag. Recently, boxes of OpenAI Codex swag consisting of a hat, hoodie and a few small tchotchkes, were commanding as much as $475. A used OpenAI sweatshirt, $246.99. An Anthropic-branded pen sold for $39.99; An authentic employee t-shirt from the $956 billion AI company, fetched $120.

“I do think these are the vintage concert rock shirts of tomorrow,” says Mitchell Brody, who operates a t-shirt shop on eBay with his college-aged daughter, Sunny. They’re currently selling an employee-issued OpenAI t-shirt for $249.99. “It’s geek chic. There’s going to be a day when people brag about the OpenAI double stitch shirt they got in the roaring twenties.”

Forbes spoke with sellers who have recently sold AI company swag on eBay, who confirmed that it, particularly OpenAI and Anthropic items, is going for many multiples above other types of company swag. On Brody’s shop, for instance, an employee tank top from tech stalwart Google is listed for $24.95. Even SpaceX lacks the new AI swag hotness premium—a legit company polo is priced at $11.92.

It’s another bubble inside the bubble.

“There’s going to be a day when people brag about the OpenAI double stitch shirt they got in the roaring twenties.” EBay seller Mitchell Brody

“The only time I've seen it like that is when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, and their swag was selling at big prices,” said one Bay Area-based seller, who declined to be identified because his employer is not aware of his side hustle. But when the bank survived, its swag bubble deflated. Recently an appropriately fatuous SVB wine glass and cheese board set sold for less than $23.

A used OpenAI sweatshirt that sold for nearly $250. The seller found it at a thrift store for less than $15. courtesy eBay seller Travis Deuel

A shirt or pen is a poor substitute for equity or an AI big on your resume. But perhaps there’s something in the illusion of belonging in the machine washable theater of Silicon Valley clout.

“You’ll look cool if you wear the swag, particularly if you don’t live in San Francisco where it’s commonplace to know people who work at these companies,” the seller says. Many buyers are from outside major tech hubs.

“Ohio is a place I hear from a lot,” he says. “Same with upstate New York.”

The real value, sellers say, isn't just the logo: it is tied to hyper-limited, small-batch runs pegged to product launches and company milestones. The garments are Silicon Valley street cred, proof that you attended a special event — or bought a shirt from someone who did.

Because anyone can print a corporate logo onto a generic blank t-shirt, buyers meticulously inspect garments for manufacturing tags and original conference packaging to verify their authenticity, sellers told Forbes. Many are found in thrift shops. Some are simply gifted to them by friends in the industry.

“The shirts that are worth the most are employee-issued. It’s insider-ish,” Brody said, who said that SpaceX shirts specific to a single flight number command massive premiums. “If you can get something others can’t buy on a public website, those are the real bragging rights.”





courtesy Mitchell Brody

OpenAI is opportunistically leaning into the hype to create a revenue-generating business line. OpenAI Supply Co, which was formerly for internal employees, quietly launched to the public on Wednesday. The site peddles custom garments, such as a $40 hat and $15 socks, and on an archive page, lists old swag with “decommissioned” dates, similar to how Nike would orchestrate a limited release SNKR scarcity event.

The store is a monument to its own vainglory, peddling “commemorative” swagriculture.

“Supply Co. began as a small line of merch for employees and almost immediately blew up. OpenAI-ers developed concerningly strong, excited opinions about collectible cards, blue folding chairs, and graphic hoodies as emerging currency,” the store’s About page explains, noting that OpenAI merch isn’t just corporate logo loot, but rather a “material embodiment of company culture” and “physical expressions of research energy.”

This isn’t the first speculative swag frenzy Silicon Valley has experienced. Collectors have always paid top dollar for mementos of spectacular startup crashes, where it’s from early dot-com busts Pets.com and Webvan or the more recent wreckage of Theranos and WeWork. And Apple has always been on the forefront of tech hypebeast culture: in the early 2000s, enthusiasts would wait in line at Apple store openings for limited edition free tshirts, which they would then flip on eBay for $200 or even $500.

But it’s only in the past decade that relics from past tech success stories have turned into a multi-million-dollar asset class — in particular, vintage Apple and Steve Jobs mementos. RR Auction, a Boston-based auction house that has overseen some of the largest tech memorabilia sales in history, has sold an original Apple-1 computer board handmade in Jobs’ garage for $2.75 million, a 1976 Wells Fargo check signed by Jobs and Steve Wozniak for $2.4 million, and a rare early Apple promotional poster for $650,000. Google and Microsoft memorabilia also sell, though they command prices in the low thousands, not millions.

Once the purview of Hollywood and rock-n-roll fans, the memorabilia market has spent the last decade making room for tech artifacts the same way it made plastic Star Wars action figures high-value assets.

Bobby Livingston, executive vice president at RR Auction, describes it as a sort of high-end participation trophy. “That moment when a creator comes up with a paradigm-shifting product, that’s the touchstone for them emotionally,” he says. “It means something.”

But the market is brutally binary. Apple relics are king, and Google and Microsoft might command respectable prices, but everything else is garage dregs.

“Failed companies’ t-shirts and swag have no value if nobody’s heard of that product anymore,” Livingston says. “Apple has a cult, and the rest are lost to history.”

Livingston thinks it will take another 25 years for AI swag to mature into a formal auction category, but he’s already seeing signs of froth. Early graphics cards and computing boards hand-signed by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang are currently selling for between $8,000 and $10,000. Last year, AI influencer Linus Ekenstam received a Google Gemini TPU, one of the computer chips that the search giant makes for training AI models, entombed in an acrylic box. He views it as a family heirloom and plans to pass it down through generations of his family.

Those looking to make a quick buck today should target Anthropic swag, as it has been historically hard to find. Alejandro Navia, who works at an AI company, said that he switched his flight to New York City just so he could stand in line to receive a free Anthropic baseball hat embroidered with the words “thinking.” They now run between $50 and $100 on eBay.

When he learned he could make some cash from selling it, he considered it. But he quickly decided against it.

“I’d rather have it for the lore; the bragging rights,” he said. “The Valley is documented via swag. ‘Oh you were there for that one? Yeah. So cool!’”





More from Forbes

Forbes Israel’s Palantir Rival Is Selling $1 Million Spy Vans To U.S. Cops

Forbes These Gen Z Founders Are Reinventing Dating Apps, Without The Swipe

Forbes AI Data Centers Are Set To Electrify This $13 Billion Family’s 76-Year-Old Company

The Booming Secondary Market For Used OpenAI and Anthropic Swag

OpenAI has made headlines with its announcement last year that it would collaborate with renowned iPhone designer Jony Ive to create a variety of physical devices. Speculation has abounded regarding the types of gadgets they might introduce, including everything from a pen and earbuds to innovative wearables. Now, with the imminent launch of Ive’s highly debated Ferrari Luce design—prompting comments from past leadership suggesting the logo be removed—reporter Mark Gurman has revealed details about OpenAI’s upcoming device: a “mobile, screen-free” smart speaker that aims to function as an AI-driven “home computer.”

This device, which remains in development, is envisioned as a lifelike AI companion designed for home use, according to anonymous sources close to the project. It will enable users to manage smart home devices, stream media, answer inquiries, communicate messages, and utilize the extensive features of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

The initiative appears to aim at establishing a novel category of technology. Unlike typical smart speakers, which are generally stationary or work in groups within different rooms of a house, this new product emphasizes mobility. Existing portable options, such as the Sonos Move and various Bluetooth speakers with limited smart functionality, primarily focus on music playback. The implication here is that to ensure constant interaction and listening capabilities, users would need to carry this smart speaker throughout their homes.

As it stands, smart speakers have enjoyed robust sales and evolved into multiple subcategories since their introduction. Classic models, like the early Echo devices, catered primarily to music playback, timer settings, and increasingly common smart home integrations over the past few years. More recently, brands like Amazon have pivoted towards tablet-like devices that serve dual purposes, acting as compact TVs, calendars, and digital photo frames. Yet, despite the passage of time since Amazon popularized this market, many features of these devices have yet to meet user expectations. While the original Echo promised adaptive learning of user preferences and speech patterns, today’s versions, including the revamped Alexa+, still exhibit limitations reminiscent of earlier iterations.

Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Apple have had ample time to deepen the integration of their speakers into various smartphone ecosystems, gaining a competitive edge. OpenAI will need to ensure its device performs well within this context right from the start. Additionally, all three tech giants are actively advancing LLM-based functionalities in their products, meaning a ChatGPT-like voice may not stand out significantly. OpenAI’s own experiments to enhance daily interactions through ChatGPT have not yet produced major breakthroughs.

Interestingly, Apple appears to be taking notice of OpenAI’s developments—reportedly pursuing legal action against the company for alleged intellectual property theft. The current narrative suggests that OpenAI has a persistent focus on creating a deeply personal assistant, even as they navigate complex challenges and ethical considerations. 

While other large tech firms have yet to explicitly pursue this intimate assistant model, OpenAI has garnered valuable, albeit challenging, insights through its endeavors. Its past attempt to craft a more engaging AI assistant was exemplified by a version of ChatGPT, which raised concerns around obsessive attachment and psychological risks. This resulted in a backlash, but it also served as a testament to OpenAI’s capability to forge strong connections between users and their AI systems—an approach that can elicit both fascination and trepidation.

OpenAI's Initial Device Aims to Learn All About You

A moody, dimly lit bedroom at night: a sleek black smart device sits on a bedside table, its sensors casting warm amber glows that scan a lone adult figure’s silhouette. Streams of floating icons—personal photos, fingerprint symbols, location pins, heart-rate lines—spiral toward the gadget. The word “OpenAI” is subtly engraved on its metal surface. Dark shadows fill the room, hinting at intrusion and secrecy.

OpenAI’s First Device Will Want to Know Everything About You - New York Magazine

- OpenAI is developing a mobile, screen-free smart speaker, serving as a home AI companion.  
- The device aims to control smart appliances, play media, and utilize ChatGPT capabilities.  
- OpenAI faces competition from established companies, needing strong integration for immediate success.

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images

Last year, OpenAI announced it would be working with iPhone designer Jony Ive on a range of physical devices. Rumors swirled about various surveillant doodads: a pen, an earbud, a necklace, a pocket shard. Now, a few weeks out from the unveiling of Ive’s other big post-Apple design collaboration — the Ferrari Luce, the intensely polarizing look of which led the company’s former boss to say he hopes “they remove the prancing horse from that car” — reporter Mark Gurman has leaked information on OpenAI’s first device, a smart speaker that’s “mobile, screen-free,” and intended to function like an AI “home computer.”

The product — still under development — is meant to serve as a humanlike AI companion that lives in the home, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the project hasn’t been announced. It will help control smart-home appliances, play media, answer questions, respond to messages and tap into the range of capabilities offered by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, they said.

This sounds like a bid to create a slightly new category of hardware. Smart speakers that live in your house tend to stay in one spot or work in unison across different rooms. Movable smart speakers, like the Sonos Move, or the countless bluetooth speakers that include little-used Alexa features are marketed as portable and are mostly dedicated to music. In addition to the devices being built around ChatGPT, the suggestion here is that, in order for them to be constantly available — and able to listen — users will be expected to take them along inside the home.

Okay! We’ll see. Smart speakers have sold well over the years and have gradually and naturally morphed into a few subcategories. You’ve got the classic early Echo-type devices, mostly used for playing music, setting timers, and, particularly within the past five years, operating increasingly common smart-home configurations. More recently, companies like Amazon shifted toward countertop tablets, which likewise fulfill some old “home computer” needs, doubling as TVs, calendars, and picture frames. In the 12 years since Amazon opened up the category, though, the “smart” part of these devices has been a consistent letdown. In 2014, the Echo launched with the promise that, the more you use it, “the more it adapts to your speech patterns, vocabulary, and personal preferences.” As with Siri, which, years into the LLM era, is just barely exceeding the capabilities it was first marketed with in the 2010s, the smart-speaker concept has only just broken out of set-timer purgatory, and not completely: Alexa+, the post-GPT revision of Amazon’s platform, can now chat with you at length and is better at taking notes and updating calendars, but it still feels like using Alexa.

Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Apple have had years to integrate their speakers with numerous smartphone protocols, and all have the benefit of existing within larger ecosystems. Whatever OpenAI builds will need that stuff to work pretty well right away. All three of those tech giants are also in the process of further building out LLM-based features across those ecosystems, so a device that talks like ChatGPT won’t have enormous novelty by default (Apple’s new Siri is built on top of Google Gemini). For OpenAI’s part, attempts to assistantize ChatGPT with daily digests and proactive communication haven’t yet taken.

There are signs that Apple is, if not worried, sort of annoyed: The company is currently suing OpenAI for what it characterizes as fairly brazen attempts at IP theft. But what this report mainly suggests is that OpenAI (which, in the years following the release of ChatGPT, frequently used the the movie Her as an aspirational touchstone — at one point releasing a demo so on the nose that Scarlett Johansson posted an angry letter about it) remains, in its alleged era of avoiding “side quests” and doubling down on paying enterprise customers to compete with Anthropic, fixated on the idea of creating an intimate personal assistant.

her — Sam Altman (@sama) May 13, 2024

This isn’t a bet any of the other big labs are making so explicitly, but it’s one with which OpenAI has since gained useful, though complicated, insights. The model generation it was demonstrating with the Johansson-ish voice was ChatGPT 4o, which would later be withdrawn for being too sycophantic but which was also linked, more clearly than any other model to date, with AI psychosis, attachment, and incitements to harm. In one way, for OpenAI, this was a disaster and a scandal. In another, it was proof of concept: They really can get people attached to their AI assistants. It just might drive some of them insane.

Your options for privacy

More from OpenAI

A public letter addressed to OpenAI’s hidden device

Apple reportedly sends legal letters to numerous former OpenAI employees.

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

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