If ChatGPT only costs $700k to run per day and they have a $10b war-chest, assuming there were no other overhead/development costs, OpenAI could run ChatGPT for 39 years. I'm not saying the premise of the article is flawed, but seeing as those are the only 2 relevant data points that they presented in this (honestly poorly written) article, I'm more than a little dubious.
But, as a thought experiment, let's say there's some truth to the claim that they're burning through their stack of money in just one year. If things get too dire, Microsoft will just buy 51% or more of OpenAI (they're going to be at 49% anyway after the $10b deal), take controlling interest, and figure out a way to make it profitable.
What's most likely going to happen is OpenAI is going to continue finding ways to cut costs like caching common query responses for free users (and possibly even entire conversations, assuming they get some common follow-up responses). They'll likely iterate on their infrastructure and cut costs for running new queries. Then they'll charge enough for their APIs to start making a lot of money. Needless to say, I do not see OpenAI going bankrupt next year. I think they're going to be profitable within 5-10 years. Microsoft is not dumb and they will not let OpenAI fail.
Thank you for providing some context for this. It kind of sounds like a fork might not have been necessary if Ernest was willing to make @melroy a maintainer. Do you know if there's any philosophical reason he wasn't willing to do that? Real life stuff comes and goes, but it seems silly to halt the "official" project that others are relying on and still wanting to improve upon and thereby force a fork. As it stands right now, it sounds like it will be awkward for Ernest to come back in and try to restart work on kbin and will be increasingly awkward the more that mbin progresses, becomes the standard, and the code bases diverge.