"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."— Shakespeare, Hamlet
February 03, 2026
OpenAI vs. Nvidia, or: How trying to demonstrate strength reveals exactly how desperate you are
Nvidia walks away from a $100 billion investment in OpenAI. Jensen Huang privately criticizes OpenAI's "business discipline." Days later, Reuters gets eight—eight—anonymous sources complaining about Nvidia's chips.
The timing isn't subtle. This is retaliation. And like the Queen in Hamlet swearing exaggerated loyalty, the protesting itself reveals what OpenAI wanted to hide.
The Setup
OpenAI burns $9 billion a year. Profitability: maybe 2029. They need Nvidia chips right now to keep ChatGPT running. Nvidia is a quasi-monopoly. Nvidia is profitable. Nvidia has more customers than capacity.
Power asymmetry. Clear.
The Paradox
Nvidia pulls back → OpenAI needs to show strength → leaks dissatisfaction with Nvidia chips → timing makes it obvious retaliation → reveals the exact weakness they wanted to hide.
All moves rational. Outcome collectively irrational.
Why This Is PI
1. Everyone acts rationally. The structure produces failure.
- Nvidia not investing $100B in an unprofitable company? Rational.
- OpenAI seeking chip alternatives (AMD, Broadcom)? Rational.
- OpenAI not wanting to appear weak after Nvidia's rejection? Rational.
- Result: Looking weaker than if they'd stayed silent.
2. The harder you try, the worse it gets.
Announcing AMD/Broadcom deals should demonstrate alternatives. Instead it demonstrates: "We desperately need alternatives." Building alternative chip infrastructure takes years. Meanwhile: still dependent on Nvidia. Every action meant to show independence reveals dependence.
3. Navigation without alternatives.
OpenAI MUST continue using Nvidia chips AND work against Nvidia AND appear strong while doing it. Doesn't work. They try anyway. Because structure.
4. Information as a weapon that backfires.
Transparency about chip dissatisfaction should strengthen negotiating position. Doesn't. Exposes desperate payback.
Hedgie sees it immediately: "When one side of a partnership starts leaking complaints right after the other side pulls back, it usually tells you who's feeling the pressure."
The Brutal Truth
The structure wins. Always.
OpenAI can't win by complaining. But staying silent would admit weakness. So they complain. And prove the weakness.
Nvidia doesn't need to do anything except wait. They have leverage. OpenAI has dependency and $9 billion in annual losses.
The trap:
- Don't respond → look weak
- Respond → look weaker
- Respond and claim strength → look weakest
This isn't poor communication. This isn't bad PR. This is what happens when asymmetric power meets structural necessity. Everyone does what they must. The outcome is predetermined.
What Doesn't Work
Checking the anti-practices:
✗ "More transparency creates trust" — Creates exposure
✗ "Demonstrate strength" — Reveals weakness
✗ "Find alternatives" — Highlights that you don't have them yet
✗ "Better communication solves structural problems" — Structure beats dialogue
What This Shows
PIs aren't about individuals making mistakes. Smart people. Rational decisions. Structural trap.
OpenAI's leadership isn't stupid. Nvidia's isn't cruel. Both navigate the only way the structure allows. The outcome isn't failure of judgment. It's success of structure.
All are guilty. None are at fault.
The pattern will repeat until the structure changes. Either OpenAI achieves chip independence (years away) or Nvidia's monopoly breaks (maybe) or OpenAI's financial situation stabilizes (2029, optimistically).
Until then: same structure, same dynamic, same outcome.
Want to see more patterns like this? We track structural failures that look like individual mistakes.
They're not.
Peter Senner
Thinking beyond the Tellerrand
contact@piinteract.org
www.piinteract.org
Paradoxical Interactions (PI): When rational actors consistently produce collectively irrational outcomes—not through failure, but through structure.