OpenAI首席执行官Sam Altman及其核心高管团队，在几乎没有外部顾问参与的情况下，主 导完成了价值高达1.5万亿美元的芯片供应交易，这一非常规操作引发市场关注。 10月26日，据英国金融时报消息，Altman在与英伟达、甲骨文、AMD和博通等公司谈判多 年期芯片及计算基础设施供应协议时，基本绕过了OpenAI的投行和律师团队，转而依赖总 裁Greg Brockman、首席财务官Sarah Friar以及新晋基础设施融资负责人Peter Hoeschele等少 数核心成员。 报道援引知情人士透露，该团队优先关注芯片交易的技术层面，财务细节则"稍后再谈"。这 种非传统做法的核心逻辑是"速度至上"。从与CoreWeave首创的119亿美元算力换股权模式， 到与英伟达高达3500亿美元的芯片采购承诺，再到接手甲骨文3000亿美元的数据中心项目， OpenAI展现出惊人的执行效率。 分析指出，这场豪赌的背后，是AI军备竞赛的紧迫性压倒了传统商业审慎原则。当被问及 交易细节时，OpenAI的态度似乎是"先拿到芯片再说"，财务和法律问题可以日后完善。这 种大胆且充满风险的做法，既体现了科技行业对AI算力的极度渴求 ...

Core Viewpoint - Oracle's $300 billion partnership with OpenAI has raised concerns about a potential AI bubble, despite the significant boost in Oracle's stock price and optimistic financial forecasts [2][4]. Group 1: Oracle's Financial Performance - Oracle's total contract value is projected to reach $455 billion, a 359% increase year-over-year, leading to a 36% surge in stock price, marking the largest single-day increase in its history [2]. - The CEO, Larry Ellison, briefly became the world's richest person following this stock price increase, which is part of a broader 45% rise in Oracle's stock this year [2]. Group 2: Partnership with OpenAI - The $300 billion agreement with OpenAI is the largest cloud computing contract ever signed, with OpenAI committing to use Oracle's computing infrastructure [4]. - A significant portion of Oracle's remaining performance obligations, amounting to $455 billion, is tied to this agreement with OpenAI, raising concerns about reliance on a single, unproven client [4][5]. Group 3: Concerns About AI Bubble - Analysts have expressed concerns regarding the financial viability of the partnership, noting that OpenAI's annual revenue is only $12 billion, which is insufficient to support the $300 billion contract [4][9]. - A study from MIT indicates that 95% of AI pilot projects have not yielded substantial returns, intensifying fears of a disconnect between investment hype and actual outcomes [7]. Group 4: Expert Opinions - AI expert Gary Marcus labeled the Oracle-OpenAI deal as a "bubble peak," criticizing the absurdity of Oracle's market valuation driven by a non-binding agreement [8]. - Other industry voices, including Ed Zirtron, have questioned the feasibility of the contract, suggesting that both companies are misleading investors about the contract's viability [8][9].