> The leaks showed inference having positive margins.

They don't. They show that OpenAI need to people to draw that conclusion, because of course they do.

> The Zitronites will say that the data is fraudulent, and OpenAI must have classified some of their inference as marketing, or R&D, or some other wacky theory of the week. But the actual data does not show that.

It doesn't?

It shows a marketing budget so absolutely mahoosive that it's almost completely implausible, which does make you think — have a percentage of marketing-driven free plan tokens been hidden in there? If not, what the hell is in there? Because it's an insane figure for a company that has benefited from a level of word of mouth that makes "ChatGPT" broadly synonymous with "AI".

Fraudulent is a big claim, of course. I didn't say it.