Ed Zitron Observation First said 2025-09-29

“Generative AI is nothing like Uber, with OpenAI and Anthropic’s true costs coming in at about $159 billion in the past two years, approaching five times Uber’s $30 billion all-time burn.”

The Case Against Generative AI, paragraph 76. The full statement is at the source.

Our reading, the sentence that was checked:

OpenAI and Anthropic's true costs were about $159 billion over the past two years, nearly five times Uber's all-time burn.

Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of 2026-10-28

Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it

Where's Your Ed At, The Case Against Generative AI, paragraph 76.

Said: 2025-09-29
Source observed: 2026-10-28live page, full text, public
Evidence as of: 2026-10-28the cutoff for this assessment
Assessment recorded: 2026-10-29assessment wyea-the-case-against-generative-ai-7f82a6-a2

We recorded 46 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.

The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2025-09-29. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.

What the claim commits to

Kind: Observation
Deadline, as the speaker wrote it: None stated. This site does not add one.
Deadline state when assessed: No horizon
Deadline state on 2026-10-29: No horizon (the release’s reference date)

From the speaker

OpenAI and Anthropic’s true costs
about $159 billion
in the past two years
Uber’s $30 billion all-time burn

Our interpretation

The linked calculation defines the period as beginning in 2024. I therefore assess January 2024 through publication, rather than two completed calendar years.
The linked calculation adds fundraising to an estimated allocation of supplier capital expenditure. This identifies the author's method; it does not independently establish expenditure.
The ordinary reading of costs is resources actually spent or consumed, including attributable supplier infrastructure, without double counting. Financing raised but not spent is not a realized cost.
Uber's cumulative cash burn requires a separate reconciliation. Accumulated accounting losses are not automatically cash burn.

Counts as supported if: Independent records establish approximately $159 billion of combined, attributable costs during the target period, without double counting, and approximately $30 billion of comparable cumulative Uber cash burn.

Counts as contradicted if: A sufficiently complete reconciliation establishes materially different costs or demonstrates that the comparison depends on counting unspent financing, duplicate expenditure, or a different financial measure.

Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.

Current assessment

Was it true for the period described?

Outcome: Unresolved

The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.

Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.

Evidence as of: 2026-10-28
Deadline state when assessed: No horizon
Assessment recorded: 2026-10-29
Policy version: 2026-10-28.7

Rationale

Anthropic announced on September 2, 2025 that it had completed $13 billion in Series F fundraising [e1]. The announcement establishes financing received, not realized costs [e1]. Uber's 2024 annual report documents historical losses, but does not establish the claimed $30 billion in comparable lifetime cash burn [e2]. These sources do not provide the reconciled totals needed to confirm or refute either the $159 billion combined-cost figure or the comparison with Uber [e1, e2].

Limitations

No independent reconciliation establishes combined attributable costs for January 1, 2024 through September 29, 2025.
The packet does not reconcile supplier infrastructure allocations, unspent financing, intercompany payments, or possible duplicate expenditure.
Uber's comparable lifetime cash burn and the claimed ratio remain unestablished.

Evidence (2 items)

Context only: Anthropic, 2025-09-02
Anthropic has completed a Series F fundraising of $13 billion led by ICONIQ.
Why it matters here: This establishes financing received, not money spent. It cannot be added to supplier capital expenditure as realized costs without a reconciliation.
Where
First substantive paragraph
Publisher
Anthropic
Kind of source
Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
Measures
Anthropic, Series F fundraising, USD billions, company reported, 2025-09-02 to 2025-09-02
Describes events of
2025-09-02
Public from
2025-09-02
Context only: Uber Technologies, 2024-12-31
We have incurred significant losses, including in the United States and other major markets.
Why it matters here: The report documents historical losses and an accumulated deficit. Those accounting measures do not establish the claimed lifetime cash-burn comparator.
Where
Risk Factors, discussion of losses and profitability; consolidated balance sheets
Publisher
Uber Technologies
Kind of source
Regulatory filing
Measures
Uber Technologies, Accumulated deficit, USD millions, gaap, ? to 2024-12-31
Describes events of
2024-12-31
Public from
2025-02-14

This claim is about OpenAI, and models from OpenAI helped review it: gpt-6-astra drafted it and gpt-6-astra reviewed it. Agreement between models is a check, not proof.

This claim is about Anthropic, and models from Anthropic helped review it: claude-opus-5-5 reviewed it and claude-opus-5-5 checked its final text. Agreement between models is a check, not proof.

AI models drafted and checked this assessment. gpt-6-astra (OpenAI) drafted it. claude-opus-5-5 (Anthropic) and gpt-6-astra (OpenAI) reviewed it independently, without seeing each other’s answers. claude-opus-5-5 (Anthropic) checked the final text against the frozen inputs. Code, not a model, decided whether it could be published.

Agreement between models is a check on the record, not proof that the assessment is right. Anthropic and OpenAI make these models, and some claims on this site are about those companies. How the method works.

What would settle it

Independent records reconciling OpenAI and Anthropic spending with attributable supplier infrastructure for January 1, 2024 through September 29, 2025, excluding unspent financing and duplicate expenditure, plus a comparable lifetime cash-burn calculation for Uber with a defined cutoff.

Where it was said (1)

Said once in the sources this register covers.

2025-09-29: Where's Your Ed At, The Case Against Generative AI
Generative AI is nothing like Uber, with OpenAI and Anthropic’s true costs coming in at about $159 billion in the past two years, approaching five times Uber’s $30 billion all-time burn.
Where
paragraph 76
Published
2025-09-29
Source observed
2026-10-28, live page
Access
full text, public

History

Assessment versions

Assessment wyea-the-case-against-generative-ai-7f82a6-a2: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.

Recorded events

2026-10-29
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment wyea-the-case-against-generative-ai-7f82a6-a2.
2026-10-29
HeldBy this site
The final-text check failed: proposition_faithful, rationale_supported_by_evidence; overclaims: The $159 billion figure is an allocation-based estimate, not a demonstrated total of realized costs. | Its linked method combines fundraising with supplier capital expenditure..
About assessment wyea-the-case-against-generative-ai-7f82a6-a1, which was not published.