OpenAI may build data centers in the UAE
OpenAI is reportedly considering building data centers in the United Arab Emirates to greatly expand its Middle East footprint. A deal could be announced as soon as this week, according to Bloomberg.
As Bloomberg notes, OpenAI has a long relationship with the UAE. In 2023, the company partnered with Abu Dhabi's AI firm G42, which last year received a $1.5 billion investment from OpenAI backer Microsoft. Meanwhile, an investment vehicle overseen by an Emirati royal family member, MGX, participated in a recent OpenAI funding round and plans to contribute to OpenAI's Stargate AI infrastructure project.
OpenAI is seeking to more closely partner with governments seen as friendly to the U.S. Earlier this month, the company launched a program, OpenAI for Countries, saying it will enable it to build out the local infrastructure needed to better serve international AI customers and 'spread democratic AI.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
OpenAI's Wallet Just Got Heavier -- Because Meta's Been Poaching
OpenAI isn't just building cutting-edge AI anymore; it's now fighting a full-blown talent war and it's using stock options as its shield. The company known worldwide for ChatGPT has seen its stock-based compensation jump more than five times over the past year; that's not a typo. In total, OpenAI handed out $4.4 billion in equity; that figure was 119% of its entire revenue for the same period. Yes it's now literally paying out more in stock than it's earning. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Sign with META. And the trigger? Meta (META, Financials) which has reportedly lured away at least nine researchers from OpenAI's AI team including some working on foundational models. These exits weren't minor; they cut deep. OpenAI had hoped this stock-based spending spree would cool off by 2025 projecting equity payouts to drop to 45% of revenue, and then under 10% by the end of the decade. But that was before Meta started raiding its brain trust. Now, those assumptions are out the window. According to internal chatter, Chief Research Officer Mark Chen believes the company might have to sweeten its equity offers even more; because when your biggest assets walk out the door, the only thing left to do is open it wider with better incentives. This isn't just about keeping salaries competitive; it's about survival. The AI space is getting fiercer by the week; and even with Microsoft in its corner, OpenAI can't afford to lose talent to rivals. Equity compensation isn't a perk anymore; it's a weapon. And OpenAI is loading up. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
TechCrunch
an hour ago
- TechCrunch
Cursor apologizes for unclear pricing changes that upset users
The CEO of Anysphere, the company behind the popular AI-powered coding environment Cursor, apologized Friday for a poorly communicated pricing change to its $20-per-month Pro plan. The changes resulted in some users complaining that they unexpectedly faced additional costs. 'We recognize that we didn't handle this pricing rollout well and we're sorry,' said Anysphere CEO Michael Truell in a blog post. 'Our communication was not clear enough and came as a surprise to many of you.' Truell is referring to a June 16 update to Cursor's Pro plan. Instead of Pro users getting 500 fast responses on advanced AI models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, and then unlimited responses at a slower rate, the company announced subscribers would now get $20 worth of usage per month, billed at API rates. The new plan allows users to run coding tasks in Cursor with their AI model of choice until they hit the $20 limit, and then users have to purchase additional credits to continue using it. However, Pro users took to social media to file their complaints in the weeks following the announcement. Many users said they ran out of requests in Cursor rather quickly under the new plan, in some cases after just a few prompts when using Anthropic's new Claude models, which are particularly popular for coding. Other users claimed they were unexpectedly charged additional costs, not fully understanding they'd be charged extra if they ran over the $20 usage limit and had not set a spend limit. In the new plan, only Cursor's 'auto mode,' which routes to AI models based on capacity, offers unlimited usage for Pro users. Anysphere says it plans to refund users that were unexpectedly charged, and aims to be more clear about pricing changes moving forward. The company declined TechCrunch's request for comment beyond the blog post. Truell notes in the blog that Anysphere changed Cursor's pricing because 'new models can spend more tokens per request on longer-horizon tasks' — meaning that some of the latest AI models have become more expensive, spending a lot of time and computational resources to complete complicated, multi-step tasks. Cursor was eating those costs under its old Pro plan, but now, it's passing them along to users. Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW While many AI models have lowered in price, the cutting edge of performance continues to be expensive — in some cases, more pricey than ever. Anthropic's recently launched Claude Opus 4 model is $15 per million input tokens (roughly 750,000 words, longer than the entire 'Lord of The Rings' series) and $75 per million output tokens. That's even more costly than Google's launch of Gemini 2.5 Pro in April, which was its most expensive AI model ever. In recent months, OpenAI and Anthropic have also started charging enterprise customers for 'priority' access to AI models — an additional premium on top of what AI models already cost that guarantees reliable, high speed performance. These expenses may be filtering their way down to AI coding tools, which seem to be getting more expensive across the industry. Users of another popular AI tool, Replit, were also caught off guard in recent weeks by pricing changes that made completing large tasks with AI more expensive. Cursor has become one of the most successful AI products on the market, reaching more than $500 million in ARR largely through subscriptions to its Pro plan. However, Cursor now faces intense competition from the AI providers it relies on, while simultaneously figuring out how to affordably serve their more expensive AI models. Anthropic's recently launched AI coding tool Claude Code has been a hit with enterprises, reportedly boosting the company's ARR to $4 billion, and likely taking some users from Cursor in the process. Last week, Cursor returned the favor by recruiting two Anthropic employees that led product development of Claude Code. But if Cursor intends to keep its market-leading position, it can't stop working with the state-of-the-art model providers — at least, not until its own home-grown models are more reasonably competitive. So Anysphere recently struck multi-year deals with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI to offer a $200-a-month Cursor Ultra plan with very high rate limits. Anthropic co-founder Jared Kaplan also told TechCrunch in June he plans to work with Cursor for a long time. However, it certainly feels as if the pressure between Cursor and AI model developers is building.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Which Workers Will AI Hurt Most: The Young or the Experienced?
When Amazon CEO Andy Jassy wrote last month that he expected the company's use of artificial intelligence to 'reduce our total workforce' over the next few years, it confirmed the fear among many workers that AI would replace them. The fear was reinforced two weeks later when Microsoft said it was laying off about 9,000 people, roughly 4% of its workforce. That AI is poised to displace white-collar workers is indisputable. But what kind of workers, exactly? Jassy's announcement landed in the middle of a debate over just this question. Some experts argue that AI is most likely to affect novice workers, whose tasks are generally simplest and therefore easiest to automate. Dario Amodei, CEO of the AI company Anthropic, recently told Axios that the technology could cannibalize half of all entry-level white-collar roles within five years. An uptick in the unemployment rate for recent college graduates has aggravated this concern, even if it doesn't prove that AI is the cause of their job-market struggles. But other captains of the AI industry have taken the opposite view, arguing that younger workers are likely to benefit from AI and that experienced workers will ultimately be more vulnerable. In an interview at a New York Times event in late June, Brad Lightcap, the chief operating officer of OpenAI, suggested that the technology could pose problems for 'a class of worker that I think is more tenured, is more oriented toward a routine in a certain way of doing things.' The ultimate answer to this question will have vast implications. If entry-level jobs are most at risk, it could require a rethinking of how we educate college students, or even the value of college itself. And if older workers are most at risk, it could lead to economic and even political instability as large-scale layoffs become a persistent feature of the labor market. David Furlonger, a vice president at the research firm Gartner who helps oversee its survey of CEOs, has considered the implications if AI displaces more experienced workers. 'What are those people going to do? How will they be funded? What is the impact on tax revenue?' he said. 'I imagine governments are thinking about that.' Is AI Making Better Managers? Economists and other experts who study AI often draw different conclusions about whom it's more likely to displace. Zooming in on the fields that have deployed AI most widely thus far tends to paint a dire picture for entry-level workers. Data from ADP, the payroll processing firm, shows that in computer-related fields, employment for workers with less than two years of tenure peaked in 2023 and is down about 20% to 25% since then. There is a similar pattern among customer service representatives, who are increasingly reliant on AI as well. Over the same period, employment in these industries has increased for workers with two or more years of job tenure, according to Ruyu Chen, a Stanford University researcher who analyzed the data. Other studies point in a similar direction, if in a roundabout way. In early 2023, Italy temporarily banned ChatGPT, which software developers there relied on to help them code. A team of researchers at the University of California, Irvine, and Chapman University compared the change in the productivity of Italian coders with the productivity of coders in France and Portugal, which did not ban the software, to isolate the impact of ChatGPT. While the study did not look at job loss, it did find that the AI tool had transformed the jobs of midlevel workers in more favorable ways than the jobs of entry-level workers. According to the researchers, the junior coders used AI to complete their tasks somewhat faster; the experienced coders often used it to benefit their teams more broadly. For example, the AI helped midlevel coders review the work of other coders and suggest improvements, and to contribute to projects in languages they didn't know. 'When people are really good at things, what they end up doing is helping other people as opposed to working on their own projects,' said Sarah Bana, one of the paper's authors, adding that the AI essentially reinforced this tendency. Bana said the paper's result suggested that AI would prompt companies to hire fewer junior coders (because fewer would be needed to complete entry-level tasks) but more midlevel coders (because AI amplified their value to their whole team). On the other hand, Danielle Li, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the use of AI in the workplace, said there were scenarios in which AI could undermine higher-skilled workers more than entry-level workers. The reason is that it can, in effect, untether valuable skills from the humans who have traditionally possessed them. For instance, you may no longer have to be an engineer to code, or a lawyer to write a legal brief. 'That state of the world is not good for experienced workers,' she said. 'You're being paid for the rarity of your skill, and what happens is that AI allows the skill to live outside of people.' Li said AI would not necessarily be good for less experienced workers, either. But she speculated that the uptick in unemployment for new college graduates resulted from employers' expectations that they will need fewer workers overall in the age of AI, not just fewer novice workers. An overall hiring slowdown can have a bigger impact on workers right out of college, since they don't have a job to begin with. Robert Plotkin, a partner in a small law firm specializing in intellectual property, said AI had not affected his firm's need for lower-skilled workers like paralegals, who format the documents that his firm submits to the patent office. But his firm now uses roughly half as many contract lawyers, including some with several years of experience, as it used a few years ago, before the availability of generative AI, he added. These more senior lawyers draft patent applications for clients, which Plotkin then reviews and asks them to revise. But he can often draft applications more efficiently with the help of an AI assistant, except when the patent involves a field of science or technology that he is unfamiliar with. 'I've become very efficient at using AI as a tool to help me draft applications in a way that's reduced our need for contract lawyers,' Plotkin said. Some of the companies at the cutting edge of AI adoption appear to have made similar calculations, laying off experienced employees rather than simply hiring fewer entry-level workers. Google, Meta and Amazon have all done layoffs since 2022. Two months before its most recent layoff announcement, Microsoft laid off 6,000 employees, many of them software developers, while the July layoffs included many middle managers. 'Anything that is administrative, spreadsheet-related, where there's an email trail, a document-management type activity, AI should be able to perform fairly easily, freeing up time for managers to do more mentoring,' said Furlonger, the analyst at Gartner, whose survey recently included questions about AI. 'CEOs are implying in the data that we don't need as many of them as we did previously.' The Value of Inexperience Gil Luria, an equity analyst who covers Microsoft for the investment bank D.A. Davidson, said one reason for layoffs was that companies like Microsoft and Google were cutting costs to prop up their profit margins as they invested billions in chips and data centers to develop AI. But another reason is that software engineers are susceptible to replacement by AI at all skill levels -- including experienced engineers who make a large salary but are reluctant to embrace the technology. Microsoft 'can do math quickly -- see who's adding value, who's overpaid, who's not overpaid, who's adapting well,' Luria said. 'There are senior people who have figured out how to get leverage out of AI and senior people who are insistent that AI can't write code.' Harper Reed, CEO of 2389 Research, which is building autonomous AI agents to help companies perform a variety of tasks, said the combination of higher salaries and a reluctance to embrace AI was likely to put the jobs of experienced coders at risk. 'How you decrease cost is not by firing the cheapest employees you have,' Reed said. 'You take the cheapest employee and make them worth the expensive employee.' A number of studies have suggested that this is possible. In a recent study by researchers at Microsoft and three universities, an AI coding assistant appeared to increase the productivity of junior developers substantially more than it increased the productivity of their more experienced colleagues. Reed said that from a purely financial perspective, it would increasingly make sense for companies to hire junior employees who used AI to do what was once midlevel work, a handful of senior employees to oversee them and almost no middle-tier employees. That, he said, is essentially how his company is structured. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
