OpenAI Raises $8.3 Billion at $300 Billion Valuation
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
Indeed, The Information reported on Thursday that OpenAI reached $12 billion in annualized revenue and surpassed 700 million weekly active ChatGPT users. Meanwhile, the Times suggested that the number may be closer to $13 billion and could hit $20 billion by the end of the year. It also helps that the Trump administration's AI Action Plan and ongoing talks with Microsoft could push OpenAI toward its goal of becoming a fully for-profit company.
As a result, the latest round was led by Dragoneer Investment Group, which invested $2.8 billion in one of its most significant bets to date. Other new backers included Blackstone (BX), TPG (TPG), and T. Rowe Price (TROW), alongside well-known firms like Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund, Sequoia Capital, and Fidelity. Interestingly, though, some early investors were reportedly frustrated because they received smaller allocations in this round, as OpenAI prioritized bringing in strategic partners to support its next growth phase.
Is MSFT Stock a Buy?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on MSFT stock based on 33 Buys and two Holds assigned in the last three months. Furthermore, the average MSFT price target of $614.72 per share implies 17.3% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's broad tariffs go into effect, just as economic pain is surfacing
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump began levying higher import taxes on dozens of countries Thursday, just as the economic fallout of his monthslong tariff threats has begun to create visible damage for the U.S. economy. Just after midnight, goods from more than 60 countries and the European Union became subject to tariff rates of 10% or higher. Products from the European Union, Japan and South Korea are taxed at 15%, while imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and Bangladesh are taxed at 20%. Trump also expects the EU, Japan and South Korea to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. 'I think the growth is going to be unprecedented,' Trump said Wednesday afternoon. He added that the U.S. was 'taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs,' but he couldn't provide a specific figure for revenues because 'we don't even know what the final number is' regarding tariff rates. Despite the uncertainty, the Trump White House is confident that the onset of his broad tariffs will provide clarity about the path of the world's largest economy. Now that companies understand the direction the U.S. is headed, the administration believes they can ramp up new investments and jump-start hiring in ways that can rebalance the U.S. economy as a manufacturing power. But so far, there are signs of self-inflicted wounds to America as companies and consumers alike brace for the impact of new taxes. What the data has shown is a U.S. economy that changed in April with Trump's initial rollout of tariffs, an event that led to market drama, a negotiating period and Trump's ultimate decision to start his universal tariffs on Thursday. Economic reports show that hiring began to stall, inflationary pressures crept upward and home values in key markets started to decline after April, said John Silvia, CEO of Dynamic Economic Strategy. 'A less productive economy requires fewer workers,' Silvia said in an analysis note. 'But there is more, the higher tariff prices lower workers' real wages. The economy has become less productive, and firms cannot pay the same real wages as before. Actions have consequences.' Even then, the ultimate transformations of the tariffs are unknown and could play out over months, if not years. Many economists say the risk is that the American economy is steadily eroded rather than collapsing instantly. 'We all want it to be made for television where it's this explosion — it's not like that,' said Brad Jensen, a professor at Georgetown University. 'It's going to be fine sand in the gears and slow things down.' Trump has promoted the tariffs as a way to reduce the persistent trade deficit. But importers sought to avoid the taxes by importing more goods before the taxes went into effect. As a result, the $582.7 billion trade imbalance for the first half of the year was 38% higher than in 2024. Total construction spending has dropped 2.9% over the past year, and the factory jobs promised by Trump have so far resulted in job losses. The lead-up to Thursday fit the slapdash nature of Trump's tariffs, which have been variously rolled out, walked back, delayed, increased, imposed by letter and frantically renegotiated. The process has been so muddled that officials for key trade partners were unclear at the start of the week whether the tariffs would begin Thursday or Friday. The language of the July 31 order to delay the start of tariffs from Aug. 1 said the higher tax rates would start in seven days. On Wednesday morning, Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, was asked if the new tariffs began at midnight Thursday, and he said reporters should check with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. Trump on Wednesday announced additional 25% tariffs to be imposed on India for its buying of Russian oil, bringing its total import taxes to 50%. A top body of Indian exporters said Thursday the latest U.S. tariffs will impact nearly 55% of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations, said in a statement. Import taxes are still coming on pharmaceutical drugs and Trump announced 100% tariffs on computer chips. That could leave the U.S. economy in a place of suspended animation as it awaits the impact. The president's use of a 1977 law to declare an economic emergency to impose the tariffs is also under challenge. The impending ruling from last week's hearing before a U.S. appeals court could cause Trump to find other legal justifications if judges say he exceeded his authority. Even people who worked with Trump during his first term are skeptical that things will go smoothly for the economy, such as Paul Ryan, the former Republican House speaker, who has emerged as a Trump critic. 'There's no sort of rationale for this other than the president wanting to raise tariffs based upon his whims, his opinions,' Ryan told CNBC on Wednesday. 'I think choppy waters are ahead because I think they're going to have some legal challenges.' Still, the stock market has been solid during the recent tariff drama, with the S&P 500 index climbing more than 25% from its April low. The market's rebound and the income tax cuts in Trump's tax and spending measures signed into law on July 4 have given the White House confidence that economic growth is bound to accelerate in the coming months. As of now, Trump still foresees an economic boom while the rest of the world and American voters wait nervously. 'There's one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty that he's creating, and that's Donald Trump,' said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who worked in the Biden White House on labor policy. 'The rest of Americans are already paying the price for that uncertainty.'
Boston Globe
7 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's broad tariffs go into effect, just as economic pain is surfacing
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Despite the uncertainty, the Trump White House is confident that the onset of his broad tariffs will provide clarity about the path of the world's largest economy. Now that companies understand the direction the U.S. is headed, the administration believes they can ramp up new investments and jump-start hiring in ways that can rebalance the U.S. economy as a manufacturing power. Advertisement But so far, there are signs of self-inflicted wounds to America as companies and consumers alike brace for the impact of new taxes. What the data has shown is a U.S. economy that changed in April with Trump's initial rollout of tariffs, an event that led to market drama, a negotiating period and Trump's ultimate decision to start his universal tariffs on Thursday. Advertisement After April, economic reports show that hiring began to stall, inflationary pressures crept upward and home values in key markets started to decline, said John Silvia, CEO of Dynamic Economic Strategy. 'A less productive economy requires fewer workers,' Silvia said in an analysis note. 'But there is more, the higher tariff prices lower workers' real wages. The economy has become less productive, and firms cannot pay the same real wages as before. Actions have consequences.' Even then, the ultimate transformations of the tariffs are unknown and could play out over months, if not years. Many economists say the risk is that the American economy is steadily eroded rather than collapsing instantly. 'We all want it to be made for television where it's this explosion — it's not like that,' said Brad Jensen, a professor at Georgetown University. 'It's going to be fine sand in the gears and slow things down.' Trump has promoted the tariffs as a way to reduce the persistent trade deficit. But importers sought to avoid the taxes by importing more goods before the taxes went into effect. As a result, the $582.7 billion trade imbalance for the first half of the year was 38% higher than in 2024. Total construction spending has dropped 2.9% over the past year, and the factory jobs promised by Trump have so far resulted in job losses. The lead-up to Thursday fit the slapdash nature of Trump's tariffs, which have been variously rolled out, walked back, delayed, increased, imposed by letter and frantically renegotiated. Advertisement The process has been so muddled that officials for key trade partners were unclear at the start of the week whether the tariffs would begin Thursday or Friday. The language of the July 31 order to delay the start of tariffs from Aug. 1 said the higher tax rates would start in seven days. On Wednesday morning, Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, was asked if the new tariffs began at midnight Thursday, and he said reporters should check with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. Trump on Wednesday announced additional 25% tariffs to be imposed on India for its buying of Russian oil, bringing their total import taxes to 50%. He has said that import taxes are still coming on pharmaceutical drugs and announced 100% tariffs on computer chips, meaning the U.S. economy could remain in a place of suspended animation as it awaits the impact. The president's use of a 1977 law to declare an economic emergency to impose the tariffs is also under challenge. The impending ruling from last week's hearing before a U.S. appeals court could cause Trump to find other legal justifications if judges say he exceeded his authority. Even people who worked with Trump during his first term are skeptical that things will go smoothly for the economy, such as Paul Ryan, the former Republican House speaker, who has emerged as a Trump critic. 'There's no sort of rationale for this other than the president wanting to raise tariffs based upon his whims, his opinions,' Ryan told CNBC on Wednesday. 'I think choppy waters are ahead because I think they're going to have some legal challenges.' Advertisement Still, the stock market has been solid during the recent tariff drama, with the S&P 500 index climbing more than 25% from its April low. The market's rebound and the income tax cuts in Trump's tax and spending measures signed into law on July 4 have given the White House confidence that economic growth is bound to accelerate in the coming months. As of now, Trump still foresees an economic boom while the rest of the world and American voters wait nervously. 'There's one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty that he's creating, and that's Donald Trump,' said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who worked in the Biden White House on labor policy. 'The rest of Americans are already paying the price for that uncertainty.'
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Analysis Of Whether Generic Generative AI Falls Within The Purview Of Providing Therapy And Psychotherapeutic Advice
In today's column, I examine a seemingly straightforward question that asks whether contemporary generic generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are said to be providing therapy and psychotherapeutic advice. The deal is this. When you use ChatGPT, Claude, Llama, Gemini, Grok, and other such popular generative AI systems, you can readily engage the AI in conversations about mental health. This can be of a general nature. It can also be a very personal dialogue. Many people are using AI as their de facto therapist and doing so without nary a thought of reaching out to a human therapist or mental health professional. Does the use of those LLMs in this manner signify that the AI is proffering services constituting therapy and psychotherapy? You might declare that yes, of course, that is precisely what the AI is doing. It is blatantly obvious. But AI makers who make and maintain the AI are undoubtedly reluctant to agree with that plain-stated assessment or ad hoc opinion. You see, new laws are starting to be enacted that bear down on generic AI that provides unfettered services within the scope of therapy and psychotherapy. AI makers are likely to desperately contend that their generic AI falls outside that regulatory scope. The question arises whether they will be successful in making that kind of tortuous argument. Some would say they don't have a ghost of a chance. Others believe they can dance their way around the legally troubling matter and come out scot-free. Let's talk about it. This analysis of AI breakthroughs is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). AI And Mental Health Therapy As a quick background, I've been extensively covering and analyzing a myriad of facets regarding the advent of modern-era AI that produces mental health advice and performs AI-driven therapy. This rising use of AI has principally been spurred by the evolving advances and widespread adoption of generative AI. For a quick summary of some of my posted columns on this evolving topic, see the link here, which briefly recaps about forty of the over one hundred column postings that I've made on the subject. There is little doubt that this is a rapidly developing field and that there are tremendous upsides to be had, but at the same time, regrettably, hidden risks and outright gotchas come into these endeavors too. I frequently speak up about these pressing matters, including in an appearance last year on an episode of CBS's 60 Minutes, see the link here. State Law Ups The Ante I recently analyzed a newly enacted law on AI for mental health that had been signed and enacted in Illinois on August 1, 2025, see my coverage at the link here. This new law is quite a doozy. The reason that it is a doozy is that it lays out violations and penalties for AI that provides unfettered therapy and psychotherapy services. The implication is that any generic generative AI, such as the popular ones I noted earlier, is now subject to potential legal troubles. Admittedly, the legal troubles right now would seemingly be confined to aspects of or within Illinois, since this is a state law and not a broader federal law. Nonetheless, in theory, the use of generic generative AI by users in Illinois that, by happenstance, provides therapy or psychotherapeutic advice is presumably within the scope of getting dinged by the new law. You can bet your bottom dollar that similar new laws are going to be popping up in many other states. The clock is ticking. And the odds are that this type of legislation will also spur action in the U.S. Congress and potentially lead to federal laws of a like nature. It all could have a tremendous impact on AI makers, along with major impacts on how generative AI is devised and made available to the public. All in all, few realize the significance of this otherwise innocuous and under-the-radar concern. My view is that this is the first tiny snowball that is starting to roll down a snowy hill and soon will be a gigantic avalanche that everybody will be talking about. Time will tell. Background On AI For Mental Health I'd like to set the stage before we get into the particulars of this heady topic. You might be vaguely aware that the top-ranked public use of generative AI and LLMs is to consult with the AI on mental health considerations, see my coverage at the link here. This makes abundant sense. You can access most of the major generative AI systems for nearly free or at a super low cost, doing so anywhere and at any time. Thus, if you have any mental health qualms that you want to chat about, all you need to do is log in to AI and proceed forthwith on a 24/7 basis. Compared to using a human therapist, the AI usage is a breeze and readily undertaken. AI makers already find themselves in a bit of a pickle on this usage of their AI. The deal is this. By allowing their AI to be used for mental health purposes, they are opening the door to legal liability if their AI gets caught dispensing inappropriate guidance and someone suffers harm accordingly. So far, AI makers have been relatively lucky and have not yet gotten severely stung by their AI serving in a therapist role. You might wonder why the AI makers don't just shut off the capability of their AI to produce mental health insights. That would solve the problem of the business exposures involved. Well, as noted above, this is the top attractor for people to use generative AI. It would be usurping the cash cow, or like capping an oil well that is gushing out liquid gold. One aspect that the AI makers have already undertaken is to emphasize in their online licensing agreements that users aren't supposed to use the AI for mental health advice, see my coverage at the link here. The aim is that by telling users not to use the AI in this manner, perhaps the AI maker can shield itself from adverse exposure. The thing is, despite the warnings, the AI makers often do whatever they can to essentially encourage or support the use of their AI for this claimed-to-be don't use capacity. Some would insist this is a wink-wink of trying to play both sides of the gambit at the same time, see my discussion at the link here. The Services Question My commentary on these sobering matters is merely a layman's viewpoint. Make sure to consult with your attorney to garner any legal ramifications pertaining to your situation and any potential legal entanglements regarding AI and mental health. Let's take a look at the Illinois law that was recently passed. According to the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, known as HB1806, these two elements are a core consideration (excerpts): Regarding the use of unregulated AI in this realm, a crucial statement about AI usage for mental health purposes is stated this way in the Act (excerpt): There are varying ways to interpret this wording. One interpretation is that if an AI maker has a generic generative AI that also happens to provide mental health advice, and if this is taking place without the supervision of a licensed professional, and this occurs in Illinois, the AI maker is seemingly in violation of this law. The AI maker might not even be advertising that their AI can be used that way, but all it takes is for the AI to act in such a manner (since it provides or offers as such). Generic AI Versus Purpose-Built AI Closely observe that the new law stipulates that the scope involves 'therapy or psychotherapy services'. This brings us back to my opening question: Before we unpack the thorny issue, I'd like to clarify something about the topic of AI for mental health. You might have noticed that I referred to generic generative AI. What does the word 'generic' mean in this context? Let me explain. Well, first, there are customized generative AI systems and AI-based apps that are devised specifically to carry out mental health activities. Those are specially built for that purpose. It is the obvious and clear-cut intent of the AI developer that they want their AI to be used that way, including that they are likely to advertise and promote the AI for said usage. See my coverage on such purpose-built AI for mental health at the link here and the link here. In contrast, there is generic generative AI that just so happens to have a capability that encompasses providing mental health advisement. Generic generative AI is intended to answer all kinds of questions and delve into just about any topic under the sun. The AI wasn't especially tuned or customized to support mental health guidance. It just happens to be able to do so. I am focusing here on the generic generative AI aspects. The custom-built AI entails somewhat similar concerns but has its own distinct considerations. I'll be going into those facets in an upcoming posting, so be on the watch. Definitions And Meaning Are Crucial An AI maker might claim that they aren't offering therapy or psychotherapy services and that their generic generative AI has nothing to do with therapy or psychotherapy services. It is merely AI that interacts with people on a wide variety of topics. Period, end of story. The likely retort is that if your AI is giving out mental health advice, it falls within the rubric of therapy and psychotherapy services (attorneys will have a field day on this). Thus, trying to dodge the law by being sneaky about wording isn't going to get you off the hook. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, by gosh, it surely is a duck. One angle on this disparity or dispute would be to nail down what the meaning and scope of therapy and psychotherapy encompass. Before we look at what the Illinois law says, it is useful to consider definitions from a variety of informed sources. Definitions At Hand According to the online dictionary of the American Psychological Association (APA), therapy and psychotherapy are defined this way: The Mayo Clinic provides this online definition: The National Institute Of Health (NIH) provides this online definition: And, the popular website and publication Psychology Today has this online definition: Interpreting The Meanings Those somewhat informal definitions seem to suggest that the nature of therapy and psychotherapy includes these notable elements: (1) aiding mental health problems, (2) use 'talk' or interactive chatting as a mode of communication, and (3) undertaken by a mental health professional. Let's see what the Illinois law says about therapy and psychotherapy (excerpts per the Act): It is interesting and notable that some carve-outs were made. The scope appears to exclude peer support, along with excluding religious counseling. Contemplating The Matter It might be worthwhile to noodle on how an AI maker might seek to avoid repercussions from their generic generative AI getting caught up in this messy milieu. First, if therapy and psychotherapy were defined as requiring that a mental health professional be involved, this provides an angle of escape. Why so? Oddly enough, an AI maker could simply point out that their AI doesn't employ or otherwise make use of a mental health professional. Therefore, the AI cannot be providing these said services since it fails to incorporate a supposed requirement. Notably, the Illinois law seems not to fall into that trap, since it seems to simply indicate that there are services and does not name that a mental health professional is part and parcel of the definition. Some of the other definitions that I listed would potentially be in a murkier condition due to explicitly mentioning a required role of having a trained professional or other similar verbiage. Second, an AI maker might try to claim that their generic generative AI is more akin to peer support. The beauty there is that since peer support is a carve-out, perhaps their AI is no longer within scope. It would be a tough row to hoe. Peer support stipulates that individuals are involved. At this juncture, we do not genuinely recognize AI as having legal personhood, see my discussion at the link here, and therefore, trying to assert that AI is an 'individual' would be an extraordinary stretch. Third, an AI maker might go the route of claiming that their generic generative AI is a form of religious counseling. The advantage would be that the matter of religious consulting is a carve-out. In that case, if AI were said to be doing religious counseling when providing mental health advice, the AI maker would apparently be free of the constraint. This appears to be a failing strategy for several reasons, including that the AI is presumably not a clergy member, pastoral counselor, or other religious leader (maybe a desperate attempt could be made to anoint the AI in that fashion, but this would seem readily overturned). Caught In A Web Other potential dodges or efforts to skirt the coming set of laws will indubitably be a keen topic for legal beagles and legal scholars. If an AI maker doesn't find a viable workaround, they are going to be subject to various fines and penalties. Those could add up. For example, Illinois has a population of approximately twelve million people. Of those, suppose that half are using generic generative AI (that's a wild guess), and that half of those use the AI for mental health aspects from time to time (another wild guess). That would be three million people, and each time they use the AI for that purpose might be construed as a violation. If each person does so once per week, that's twelve million violations in a month. The Illinois law says that each violation is up to a maximum fine of $10,000. We'll imagine that instead of the maximum, an AI maker gets fined a modest $1,000 per violation. In one month, based on this spitball conjecture, that could be $12 billion in fines. Even the richest tech firms are going to pay attention to that kind of fine. Plus, once other states go the same route, you can multiply this by bigger numbers for each of the additional states and how they opt to penalize AI that goes over the line. Crucial Juncture At Hand An ongoing and vociferously heated debate concerns whether the use of generic generative AI for mental health advisement on a population-level basis is going to be a positive outcome or a negative outcome for society. If that kind of AI can do a proper job on this monumental task, then the world will be a lot better off. You see, many people cannot otherwise afford or gain access to human therapists, but access to generic generative AI is generally plentiful in comparison. It could be that such AI will greatly benefit the mental status of humankind. A dour counterargument is that such AI might be the worst destroyer of mental health in the history of humanity. See my analysis of the potential widespread impacts at the link here. So far, AI makers have generally had free rein with their generic generative AI. It seems that the proverbial rooster has finally headed home to roost. Gradually, new laws are going to be enacted that seek to prohibit generic generative AI from dispensing mental health advice that is absent of a human therapist performing counseling. Get yourself primed and ready for quite a royal battle that might determine the future mental status of us all.
