OpenAI secures $200 million Pentagon contract to develop technology for national security
Show Caption
Hide Caption
OpenAI's Altman sees 2026 as a turning point for AI in business
At a keynote conversation during Snowflake Summit in San Francisco on June 2, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman predicted that by next year, AI systems will begin helping businesses solve complex problems and even uncover new knowledge.
ChatGPT maker OpenAI was awarded a $200 million contract to provide the U.S. Defense Department with artificial intelligence tools, the Pentagon said in a statement on Monday.
"Under this award, the performer will develop prototype frontier AI capabilities to address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains," the Pentagon said.
The work will be primarily performed in and near Washington with an estimated completion date of July 2026, the Pentagon said.
Artificial intelligence: Saying 'please' and 'thank you' to ChatGPT costs millions of dollars, CEO says
OpenAI said last week that its annualized revenue run rate surged to $10 billion as of June, positioning the company to hit its full-year target amid booming AI adoption.
OpenAI said in March it would raise up to $40 billion in a new funding round led by SoftBank Group9984.Tat a $300 billion valuation. OpenAI had 500 million weekly active users as of the end of March.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget released new guidance in April directing federal agencies to ensure that the government and "the public benefit from a competitive American AI marketplace."
The guidance had exempted national security and defense systems.
Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Leslie Adler
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
GM's quarterly results illustrate the folly of tariffs
General Motors, a cornerstone of American industry, is suffering the consequences of President Trump's unconstitutional 25 percent tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts. In the second quarter of 2025, GM suffered a $1.1 billion tariff blow to its operating income, slashing the company's profit margin from a healthy 9 percent to just 6.1 percent. Net income plunged by 36.1 percent from the prior quarter and by a staggering 40.7 percent compared to a year ago. Although the estimated tariff impact for the full year of $4 billion to $5 billion is less than 3 percent of GM's overall revenue, that cost represents more than half of the typical annual income for the company over the past decade. The consequences extend far beyond GM's balance sheet. Tariffs, paid by importers to the federal government, are partly absorbed by companies and partly passed to consumers. We've especially seen this in import-sensitive sectors including furnishings, appliances, clothes and toys. Men's shirts and sweaters, for instance, rose 4.9 percent in June alone. When businesses 'eat' the cost, as GM tried to do last quarter, the fallout is no less severe. Diminished earnings mean less capital for investment in better technology or expanded operations, slowing broader economic growth, fewer resources for pay raises or new jobs — hardly the boon for workers that tariff advocates promise. The data confirms this. Nationwide, 14,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the past two months, erasing all gains in 2025. In June, real average weekly earnings dropped by 0.4 percent, an annualized loss of nearly 5 percent. Shareholders are also feeling the pinch. Stock valuations track a company's expected future earnings. Since 2012, GM's stock price increased by more than 200 percent. GM's price-to-earnings ratio today stands at 6.83, almost identical to 2012 levels. Stock prices increased alongside earnings. A sustained $5 billion annual hit, wiping out over half of GM's annual net income, could erase more than $20 billion in market capitalization if valuations adjust. With tariffs eroding profits, is it any wonder that GM's stock has slid 8 percent since its post-2024 election peak and now languishes 13 percent off its 2021 highs? This affects millions of middle-class Americans and retirees with pensions and savings invested. More broadly, lower dividends and diminished returns discourage investment, starving companies of the capital needed to expand. The result: slower growth, fewer jobs and weaker wage gains. GM, to its credit, is fighting to offset 30 percent of this burden by boosting U.S. production, cutting costs and increasing domestic content to comply with the USMCA trade agreement's labyrinthine rules. Yet even if successful, the net impact of $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion will devour a significant slice of GM's already thin margins. Profit margins at GM — as in most other sectors — are far less than conventional wisdom. GM's net profit margin over the past decade has averaged less than 5 percent. In other words, a $30,000 vehicle yields less than $1,500 in profit. GM's plans to shift some production to U.S. plants and rework supply chains is a testament to private enterprise's resilience. But make no mistake: These shifts sacrifice efficiency for compliance. Restructuring operations in a free market in pursuit of efficiency yields more profit, consumer benefit and economic growth. Doing so under duress to escape arbitrary tariffs may result in survival, but without these benefits. Resources that could have fueled innovation or lowered prices are now squandered on navigating artificial trade barriers. As an important sidenote, roughly half the tariff's cost stems from GM's South Korean operations, a stark reminder of the folly of taxing trade with allies. Rather than strengthening ties with democratic partners through bold free-trade agreements, these tariffs risk pushing nations like South Korea toward China, America's chief adversary. Far from economic strategy, it is geopolitical shortsightedness. Politicians sometimes prefer tariffs to other forms of taxation because they are less visible than taxes on income or sales. This makes it easier to dodge accountability by blaming 'greedy' corporations. For this reason, Trump called Jeff Bezos to deter Amazon from listing tariff costs on purchases. The White House press secretary labeled this a 'hostile and political act by Amazon.' Regardless, protectionism is not cost-free. Sustained tariffs will raise prices, shrink profits, erode real wages and slow economic growth. GM's quarterly results are a warning.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
OpenAI is at a classic strategy crossroads involving its ‘moat'—which Warren Buffett believes can make or break a business
It's an epochal moment as history's latest general-purpose technology, AI, forms itself into an industry. Much depends on these early days, especially the fate of the industry's leader by a mile, Open AI. In terms of the last general-purpose technology, the internet, will it become a colossus like Google or be forgotten like AltaVista? No one can know, but here's how to think about it. OpenAI's domination of the industry is striking. As the creator of ChatGPT, it recently attracted 78% of daily unique visitors to core model websites, with six competitors splitting up the rest, according to a recent 40-page report from J.P. Morgan. Even with that vast lead, the report shows, OpenAI is expanding its margin over its much smaller competitors, including even Gemini, which is part of Google and its giant parent, Alphabet (2024 revenue: $350 billion). The great question now is whether OpenAI can possibly maintain its wide lead (history would say no) or at least continue as the industry leader. The answer depends heavily on OpenAI's moat, a Warren Buffett term for any factor that protects the company and cannot be easily breached–think of Coca-Cola's brand or BNSF Railroad's economies of scale, to mention two of Buffett's successful investments. On that count the J.P. Morgan analysts are not optimistic. Specifically, they acknowledge that while OpenAI has led the industry in innovating its models, that strategy is 'an increasingly fragile moat.' Example: The company's most recent model, GPT-5, included multiple advances yet underwhelmed many users. As competitors inevitably catch up, the analysts conclude, 'Model commoditization is an increasingly likely outcome.' With innovations suffering short lives, OpenAI must now become 'a more product-focused, diversified organization that can operate at scale while retaining its position' at the top of the industry–skills the company has yet to demonstrate. Bottom line, OpenAI can maintain its leading rank in the industry, but it won't be easy, and betting on it could be risky. Yet a different view suggests OpenAI is much closer to creating a sustainable moat. It comes from Robert Siegel, a management lecturer at Stanford's Graduate School of Business who is also a venture capitalist and former executive at various companies, many in technology. He argues that OpenAI is already well along the road to achieving a valuable attribute, stickiness: The longer customers use something, the less likely they are to switch to a competitor. In OpenAI's case, 'people will only move to Perplexity or Gemini or other solutions if they get a better result,' he says. Yet that becomes unlikely because AI learns; the more you use a particular AI engine, the more it learns about you and what you want. 'If you keep putting questions into ChatGPT, which learns your behaviors better, and you like it, there's no reason to leave as long as it's competitive.' Now combine that logic with OpenAI's behavior. 'It seems like their strategy is to be ubiquitous,' Siegel says, putting ChatGPT in front of as many people as possible so the software can start learning about them before any competitor can get there first. Most famously, OpenAI released ChatGPT 3.5 to the public in 2022 for free, attracting a million users in five days and 100 million in two months. In addition, the company raised much investment early in the game, having been founded in 2015. Thus, Siegel says, OpenAI can 'continue to run hard and use capital as a moat so they can do all the things they need to do to be everywhere.' But Siegel, the J.P. Morgan analysts, and everyone else knows plenty can always go wrong. An obvious threat to OpenAI and most of its competitors is an open-source model such as China's DeepSeek, which appears to perform well at significantly lower costs. The venture capital that has poured into OpenAI could dry up as hundreds of other AI startups compete for financing. J.P. Morgan and Siegel agree that OpenAI's complex unconventional governance structure must be reformed; though a recently proposed structure has not been officially disclosed, it is reportedly topped by a nonprofit, which might worry profit-seeking investors. As for moats, OpenAI is obviously in the best position to build or strengthen one. But looking into the era of AI, the whole concept of the corporate moat may become meaningless. How long will it be, if it hasn't been done already, before a competitor asks its own AI engine, 'How do we defeat OpenAI's moat?' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Silicon Valley talent keeps getting recycled, so this CEO uses a ‘moneyball' approach for uncovering hidden AI geniuses in the new era
The AI talent war among major tech companies is escalating, with firms like Meta offering extravagant $100 million signing bonuses to attract top researchers from competitors like OpenAI. But HelloSky has emerged to diversify the recruitment pool, using AI-driven data to map candidates' real-world impact and uncover hidden talent beyond traditional Silicon Valley networks. As AI becomes more ubiquitous, the need for the top-tier talent at tech firms becomes even more important—and it's starting a war among Big Tech, which is simultaneously churning through layoffs and poaching people from each other with eye-popping pay packages. Meta, for example, is dishing out $100 million signing bonuses to woo top OpenAI researchers. Others are scrambling to retain staff with massive bonuses and noncompete agreements. With such a seemingly small pool of researchers with the savvy to usher in new waves of AI developments, it's no wonder salaries have gotten so high. That's why one tech executive said companies will need to stop 'recycling' candidates from the same old Silicon Valley and Big Tech talent pools to make innovation happen. 'There's different biases and filters about people's pedigree or where they came from. But if you could truly map all of that and just give credit for some people that maybe went through alternate pathways [then you can] truly stack rank,' Alex Bates, founder and CEO of AI executive recruiting platform HelloSky, told Fortune. (In April, HelloSky announced the close of a $5.5 million oversubscribed seed round from investors like Caldwell Partners, Karmel Capital, True, Hunt Scanlon Ventures as well as prominent angel investors from Google and Cisco Systems). That's why Bates developed HelloSky, which consolidates candidate, company, talent, investor, and assessment data into a single GenAI-powered platform to help companies find candidates they might not have otherwise. Many tech companies pull from previous job descriptions and resume submissions to poach top talent, explained Bates, who also authored Augmented Mind about the relationship between humans and AI. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg even reportedly maintains a literal list of all the top talent he wants to poach for his Superintelligence Labs and has been heavily involved in his own company's recruiting strategies. But the AI talent wars will make it more difficult than ever to fill seats with experienced candidates. Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently lamented about how few candidates AI-focused companies have to pull from. 'The bet, the hope is they know how to discover the remaining ideas to get to superintelligence—that there are going to be a handful of algorithmic ideas and, you know, medium-sized handful of people who can figure them out,' Altman recently told CNBC. The 'moneyball' for finding top talent Bates refers to his platform as 'moneyball' for unearthing top talent—essentially a 'complete map' of real domain experts who may not be well-networked in Silicon Valley. Using AI, HelloSky can tag different candidates, map connections, and find people who may not have as much of a social media or job board presence, but have the necessary experience to succeed in high-level jobs. The platform scours not just resumes, but actual code contributions, peer-reviewed research, and even trending open-source projects, prioritizing measurable impact over flashy degrees. That way, companies can find candidates who have demonstrated outsized results in small, scrappy teams or other niche communities, similar to how the Oakland A's Billy Beane joined forces with Ivy League grad Peter Brand to reinvent traditional baseball scouting, which was depicted in the book and movie Moneyball. It's a 'big unlock for everything from hiring people, partnering, acquiring whatever, just everyone interested in this space,' Bates said. 'There's a lot of hidden talent globally.' HelloSky can also sense when certain candidates 'embellish' their experience on job platforms or fill in the gaps for people whose online presence is sparse. 'Maybe they said they had a billion-dollar IPO, but [really] they left two years before the IPO. We can surface that,' Bates said. 'But also we can give credit to people that maybe didn't brag sufficiently.' This helps companies find their 'diamond in the rough,' he added. Bates also predicts search firms and internal recruiters will start forcing assessments more on candidates to ensure they're the right fit for the job. 'If you can really target well and not waste so much time talking to the wrong people, then you can go much deeper into these next-gen behavioral assessment frameworks,' he said. 'I think that'll be the wave of the future.' This story was originally featured on
