OpenAI is considering a new business model where it would take a share of profits from companies that make major discoveries using its AI tools, particularly in fields like drug development, sparking widespread debate about fairness and precedent on social media. While similar profit-sharing models exist in biotech, critics argue this approach is controversial given OpenAI’s general-purpose nature and its own use of copyrighted material, with the proposal still in early discussion stages.
OpenAI has sparked controversy by proposing a new business model where it would take a share of profits from customers who make significant discoveries using its AI tools, particularly in fields like drug discovery. This idea, reported by The Information, suggests that if a pharmaceutical company uses OpenAI’s technology to develop a successful drug, OpenAI would want a percentage of the resulting profits, in addition to the standard subscription fees it already charges. The news has led to widespread debate on social media, with many questioning the fairness and practicality of such a model.
The core of the outrage centers on the comparison to traditional software tools. Critics argue that it would be unreasonable for a company like Microsoft to demand a cut of book sales just because the author used Microsoft Word, or for Excel to claim a share of profits from financial models built with its software. The concern is that OpenAI’s approach could set a precedent where software providers claim ongoing stakes in their customers’ successes, which is not how most software-as-a-service (SaaS) models operate.
However, the video explains that profit-sharing arrangements are not entirely new in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. For example, companies like Sanofi have paid AI drug discovery firms such as Exscientia large sums, including milestone payments and royalties, based on the success of drugs developed with their help. Google’s Isomorphic Labs operates on a similar model, partnering with pharmaceutical companies and receiving upfront payments, milestone bonuses, and royalties if the drugs reach the market. The key difference is that these AI companies are specifically built for drug discovery, whereas OpenAI is a general-purpose AI provider.
A major point of contention is the perceived hypocrisy of OpenAI’s approach. Critics highlight that OpenAI trained its models on vast amounts of copyrighted material without compensating the original creators, yet now seeks to claim a share of the intellectual property generated by its users. This has fueled skepticism about the company’s motives and the fairness of its proposed business model. The video notes that, at this stage, the idea is still in the discussion phase and would likely require carefully structured contracts to determine when and how OpenAI’s technology was essential to a discovery.
Ultimately, the video suggests that OpenAI’s proposal is aimed at large-scale, high-value applications—such as pharmaceutical research—that require significant computing resources, rather than targeting individual users or small businesses. The model could involve offering substantial compute budgets to companies in exchange for a share of future profits if their projects succeed. While the idea is still being floated and details remain unclear, the video concludes that how OpenAI implements this model—and which companies it partners with—could have significant implications for the future of AI-driven innovation and business practices.