Hacker News

lampshade Verb

(narratology, fandom slang) To intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent, or clichéd nature of an element or situation featured in a work of fiction within the work itself.

A: "Our AI is fucking dangerous! Invest Now"

"Cyber Apocalypse"

A: We told you so!

Nah, they are referring to the system prompt that runs Claude: "Always underpromise and overdeliver. Make no mistakes."

It is, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50244855

When you underpromise and deliver sales will still tell you they could have sold the overpromise for even more and should have gone with that.

To be fair, this account is 4 hours old and created 2 hours before the S-1 post.

With the amount of money involved here and the current agentic tooling context, how am I ever to take comments like from accounts like this on topics like this at face value?

> We know Tesla and SpaceX are going down at some point

How do we "know" that about SpaceX? Still seems to me like they're basically maintaining their decade lead on everyone else on rocketry. And remaining competitive in their other endeavors as well. To me it doesn't seem at all unreasonable for SpaceX to never be meaningfully cheaper than it is today. But I'm not exactly following SpaceX closely. What am I missing?

In TFA which includes a foreword by Anthropic - just under "On investor expectations"

There has not been a company that has overpromised and underdelivered as strongly as Anthropic in the history of humanity. They literally talk about their chatbots being conscious, model welfare, blah blah blah. Whether or not they believe their marketing is one thing, but it is nonetheless a fact that they market themselves as having created life.

I think the joke is that E. Holmes probably used variants of this cliche.

“Beleive” in the sense that Tom Cruise believes in the cosmic DC8?

Anthropic [employees] huffing their own koolaid fumes aside, it’s extremely difficult to believe the claims that these mega valuations are substantiated on (*one* company somehow assuming a meaningful fraction of global research and production)

The problem for me is that it's really hard to project what this industry is going to look like 6 months from now, let alone 6 years.

What's the endgame once the dust settles? Is it going to be a utility like water or electricity and the cheapest offer will prevail, in which case margins will be crushed? Or is Anthropic (or some other big AI lab) going to swallow everything and become the Google Search of LLMs, with everybody else fighting for scraps?

Or is it local compute, models becoming more efficient and hardware becoming cheaper (again) and companies hosting their own AI clusters like they would run SAP?

I think there is a plausible path where this valuation actually works out, but it's a narrow one IMO. I also want to acknowledge that I personally would prefer if it wasn't the case and a more distributed, open model prevailed.

The Chinese labs are not providing their open-weight models for free because they think it is good for humanity. They are doing it because they are severely chip constrained due to the Nvidia and ASML embargos and all available GPUs have to go toward training with very little left for inference [1]. So they are giving their models away for US and EU hosts to serve inference in order to still have a presence in the market.

It's not a great position to be in and it will still take a long time for the compute gap to close. In the meantime, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are essentially unchallenged.

[1] https://www.konstantinpilz.com/posts-publications/chinese-st...

The online crowd harping on about Chinese models is disconnected from reality imo.

I won't use a Chinese model. Why would i bother? I pay $100/m for the frontier model, understanding it's marginally better than much cheaper alternatives. I get so much value from the product it's not worth shopping around

Think of it like apple and android. Plenty of people pay 2k for their iPhone every few years when android at 1/4 the price is just as functional. Why? Because they get so much excess value from the device it's not worth shopping around. For most people it's their only personal computer. From booking airfare, to filling out their kids permission slips, it's a device they use 10+ hours a week. They don't bother, until a paradigm shift happens and something is 10x better than the iPhone. I imagine llms will follow the same trajectory

I think you’re right - it’ll be interesting to see how the behemoths navigate when new and cheaper memory manufacturing capacity comes online. Currently predicted to happen starting 2028. That is where most of the current hardware costs are concentrated.

On that front, I think DeepSeek is a dark horse. They are really odd - not chasing revenue, care more about unit profitability, are obsessed with driving down costs (like Elon back in the day). As the founder says, they are content with where they are, being the model that does 80% for a fraction of the cost.

I mention them because they are playing a different game and might be able to out-innovate everyone else.

Anthropic is not in the model business. They were smart and they are building productivity ecosystem business. Look at what claude artifacts are doing now -- inline multi-user editing, comments that users and/or models can respond and take action on, import/export from all common formats. It's at least a Google Docs killer if not an M365 killer.

And claude code as a harness and skill/plugin/mcp ecosystem is far more valuable than any one model.

And coward for long-running tasks, though they're slipping on that one because they're really trying hard not to make Claude an assistant. We'll see if they react to Muse and change course.

But the Chinese free-weight models? Not a competitor. If/when those companies (or others) build vertically integrated productivity stacks on those free models, then we'll talk. Microsoft certainly saw that opportunity but couldn't get out of their own way and are basically roadkill at this point.

Even outside of the Chinese models, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta all of them are offering significantly more coherent and competitive internal models and reasonable price.

Why would I pick anthropic.

That depends on whether "frontier" models can maintain an expanding frontier. If the frontier settles, they're dead, and it will be commoditized. Otherwise, there are still plenty of pathological behaviors of these things to address that will keep expanding that frontier (if that's possible and the limitation isn't the approach itself).

The reception of saying things like this is interesting. AI stans think I'm way too pessimistic but AI haters think I'm mindlessly optimistic.

Cloud compute has managed to have pretty good margins. That seems like a really similar business model to what Anthropic is doing - inferene+value-adds as-a-service. Why wouldn't they also be able to get cloud level margins or a bit higher?

there is no point of saying 'the chinese' everyone will do it because it was proven that any political frills might cause an attempt to damage your system.

I dont know when, but i think if you keep menacing of taking technology of people hands for any political reason will be a reason for people to not use it or to rely in a more reasonable party.

I don't think today's prices are the ceiling, considering they are subsidized. Once businesses have grown dependent on AI (and their institutional knowledge is lost), they will pay much more just to stay afloat.

> Today's prices are the ceiling.

Why? I don't see any reason for that to be the case.

100% value fallacy right there.

Point is taken - competition is fierce and will be biting everyone's ankles.

Unfortunately it's now extremely likely that our governments will manipulate markets to keep frontier domestic AI afloat. They are financially and militarily dependent on domestic AI now.

Chinese models are being banned, will continue to be banned by USG. Even the Chinese govt is restricting external access to models now. It starts with banning Govt access to International AI, but will continue to consumer and business access.

buying anthropic = betting that there is going to be ai breakthrough at anthropic that will put its models ahead. AI stock market = polymarket

> Meanwhile the Chinese are going to undercut them every chance they get.

I wish they were, but I always wonder when people chime in with Chinese models what they are actually doing with those. I have an OpenRouter account and give various models a shot every other month, wishing for an alternative, but I always come back to Claude. Even more so since the switch from Opus 5.1 to 5.5. To me, personally, it's unmatched. Like a year ago it was very different, and I would use other models all the time. But honestly at the time they all felt kind of "meh" still. I just hope everyone is at a good baseline in a year from now on, so I actually have a choice. And then, as you stated, things will get interesting.

tl;dr: I agree

Thanks for clarifying, that’s a huge difference. Obviously they will have other revenue sources, but will likely make a small portion of their revenue. If we approximate their growth rate by these numbers, it is quite a slowdown.

500B in a decade is really a lot

What is Claude doing as a product that other similar companies aren't also doing, or can't easily catch up on?

I somewhat agree to what you said, but also, the whole point of agentic coding is that "code is cheap". So I can't imaging companies like Google not having the resources (whether human or token) to build a better agentic assistant/harness than what Anthropic can. I mean Google has a pretty good starting point with Google Docs, etc.

I agree, I would say $500 billion valuation is fair, they don't have a moat and open models are catching up, they have a limited products with strong competitors, if they have a step change model in the pipeline now would be a good time to release it.

>as in, if they capture every single professional software dev and extract $1000 from them every month, their yearly revenue will be like $500B. do your own back of the envelope on that with ongoing costs and consider how unrealistic a goal this actually is.

The market for Claude Code is much bigger than professional software devs. It's really anyone who uses a computer. I already know normal people who have been using it for personal software.

The lawyers and finance folks I know are all using Claude. I don’t think it’s as limited to coding right now as you’re thinking

>the market for their valuation is just not there imo

I tried to look for the valuation in the linked document, did you see it or any reference to a valuation elsewhere in anything published by Anthropic? what is "their valuation" that you refer to?

> they will keep doubling down, because stopping is simply not an option

Of course it is. Apple is taking that strategic approach. If Anthropic believes it’s approaching saturation, pulling the plug when it’s at steady state and its rivals are over-invested is the winning move.

Exactly.

That’s why they hire ‘for the misson’. They have to pull off something magical to make all this work financially or they go bust.

Total global wages ~$12 trillion/year. The "what you have to believe" here is that AI tool spend becomes at least 10-20% of it, my belief here is we see net slowdown in hiring as human + AI = super productivity so as businesses grow we'll continue to see increase in AI spending.

Then if inference does grow to a $2-3 trillion/year market that Anthropic is a big winner, as big as NVDA is now (they're going to be over $500 billion in revenue in calendar year 2027).

We will see more (and bigger) "circular economy" deals.

They aren't "fast-depreciating infrastructure" -- research shared by a16z team, rental rates are up across the board, even for GPUs that are 5+ years old. The demand is real right now. The proverbial tide could go out but we aren't seeing it yet.

Source: https://x.com/a16z/status/2113986385908842870

"Zooming out, GPUs are still renting ahead of a standard 6-year depreciation schedule

Rental price vs. schedule: - H200: +143% - B200: +111% - RTX PRO 6000: +73% - H100: +54% - A100: +9%

Most of the gap opened up after April, when token demand took off"

The OP post is misleading because it makes you think Anthropic has to earn 500bn per year in revenue, but those commitments listed are not yearly commitments, they're commitments over 10 years with contracts that run until 2036.

Anthropic needs to earn 52B a year in annual revenue to honor those specific commitments plus obviously its own operating expenses... and yeah that will require Anthropic to grow as a company, but their S-1 indicates 67.2B a year in revenue and sure maybe they stop growing and this is their peak... or maybe they do manage to grow further to 80B a year, 90B a year...

People are only nuts if they actually take money they don't have to invest in random companies.

But lets be clear: the growth of Anthropics revenue is very fast and way too many people stll don't even use AI

I’ve spent more money on Claude this year than I’ve given to a lot of other tech companies, combined. Well, I bought a new phone too - but amortised over the phone’s lifetime it’s still much cheaper than I’ve spent on my claude subscription and what I’ve gotten my company to pay in api usage credits.

There are two questions. Will the value keep scaling? And how much of that value chain will anthropic hold on to? Right now software development is being eaten alive by LLMs. Will that happen to other industries too? And in the long run, what do the models we run look like? Are people going to end up self hosing opensource models themselves, or are we going to collectively hitch our wagons to frontier models provided by anthropic and their competitors?

If ai keeps getting better - which I think it will - and if anthropic can corner a large part of the market in an enduring way - which seems less likely to me - then yes. I can easily imagine them becoming a huge company.

The thing to be remember about those companies you listed, none of them are software companies like Anthropic is.

* Amazon is a logistics company * Walmart is a logistics and retail company * Apple is a hardware company (that uses software to set their hardware apart) * NVidia is a hardware company

The closest you get is Microsoft, at 281B in revenue. Some might argue Google/Alphabet, which is in the same area, but they sell Ads, not software.

Anthropic's expectations is that they will be able to fast-track their revenue generation to almost twice what Microsoft does today. In less than a few years.

I think you are underestimating the market for AI. The better it gets the more the market expands.

The total amount spent on salaries in he US alone is over 12T dollars.

Assuming AI becomes ever more useful and is widely adopted 500B in revenue is not that crazy.

I agree with you from our perspective it is ridiculous. I also agree that getting the consumer market to willingly pay for AI to the point where it sustains such an amount of revenue is not going to happen. (The knock on effects of folks using AI, and turning others off to AI because they used AI instead of writing emails themselves, for example).

But.

They may peak at 500B before this bubble bursts, simply because other major industry players are betting on AI as a means to get folks to believe in their own stock.

It’s belief all the way down, until you get to the point where “the market” starts asking where the return on investment is, and why they haven’t seen it yet. By that time, the investors have gotten their return and cashed out, and it’s the pension funds and the retail traders that are holding the bag.

And of course, at some point AI’s promise will be delivered in a form or fashion as yet unknown to us, but that is still years away, and until folks recognize that LLMs as they exist to day are not the path to that, they’ll continue to believe in this valuation.

Nvidia almost hit 100B in revenue last quarter.

That doesn’t seem ridiculous at all. Replacing clerical and knowledge workers is a vastly larger market than iPhones.

What feels ridiculous today might be the normal of tomorrow. Welcome to the new world.

What you are saying is the same thing that has been said about anyone trying to do anything massive and at scale. Can't be done - thats ridiculous - you are out of your mind.

Literally every S1 is filled with these kinds of statements

Of course such growth cannot be sustained and the word "MAY" is funny there. You cannot have infinity growth, it is mathematically impossible. There are no unlimited (monetary) resources on this planet.

Those are just standard disclaimers.

It's a misleading number, the 500 billion in revenue is needed over a 10 year period, it's not a yearly figure. Anthropic isn't paying 500 billion a year for the commitments that OP posted, it's paying 500 billion between now and 2036.

In the simplest calculation, if you get 200M people on a $200/mo pro max plan, that's $500B annual revenue.

This is a "utility" mindset. If you bet that Anthropic is just like a monthly electric bill, then it's within the realm of possibility.

For the record - I don't think that's gonna happen.

This is the issue, for two reasons: Is there trillions of dollars of demand for LLMs, which is what it takes for Anthropic to make $500 billion in revenue? Is that demand going to be met by frontier cloud LLMs, or by open weight models run by the organizations using them (and cheaper cloud alternatives)?

Yes it is a newer business but doesn’t change the fact that models are trending towards a commodity. And that’s a huge problem for the business model on offer.

Selling subscription productivity tools is a business that has existed for decades if not centuries. Just because their product is new does not mean their business is.

> Anthropic is in a business that didn't exist 3 years ago.

but it's already commoditized.

And is already commoditizing. If not already commoditized

This is hilarious lol

Nobody was saying subleasing offices wasn’t a business. It was just WeWork’s setup that was untenable and ultimately insolvent.

Similarly nobody is saying AI can’t be a successful business, but here too the big labs have dug themselves into a giant hole such that a bankruptcy reset may ultimately be the only way out of it. Time will tell.

Shorting a company is not a trade against the future of a company, it is a trade against the market. You can know a company is going to zero and the company can go to zero and you can still lose your shirt from shorting it.

A lot of people will, if this IPO actually happens. But as is frequently pointed out a short is a market bet not a bet against the company and the market remains wild and irrational. You can be right about the company ultimately failing and still lose your shirt on a short.

However the price of CDS on bonds is already a strong market indication of where the market thinks all of this is heading. And none of that looks good if you’re betting on the AI exuberance continuing.

Shorting is not the only way to protect yourself from a bad investment.

You can simply not buy shares in companies you think are on a doomed trajectory.

That said, depending on the IPO target price, I might short it.

When you've got companies like Tesla valued at what they're valued at. Shorting is pretty dumb.

Then we regress back to relying on the fact that the ability of an average person (not) to be violent has inherent value. This has been the dominant factor in many moments in history.

Although if you have killer robots, then all bets are truly off, and we go the way of the dodo, literally.

(I don’t actually believe in this LessWrong-esque rhetoric, reality is more complicated, but it’s fun to muse about.)

EDIT: If oligarchs with magic AGI really don’t need our labor, nor are they concerned by our violence, then perhaps we become more like ants rather than dodos: we organize to help each other, creating a somewhat traditional economy around the scraps that don’t matter to the oligarchs, relying on obscurity and harmlessness to avoid getting toyed with a magnifying glass. I suppose that’s slightly better.

Also if they really crack AGI they're not going to provide it for 200$ a month lol

They won't be able to control saud AGI. Ref Ultron

Money is a medium of exchange. If I want something, I can get money in some way, then swap it for something else.

But if I have a near magical genie who can make me anything - software, farming business, physical things - and at a fraction of economic input compared to the legacy monetary policy - then the money is worthless. As the Aztec shells were to the conquistadors.

That they can’t print USD is irrelevant.

I don’t think he means “tokens” as in LLM input/output units here.

He just means it as in “credits”. “Fiat tokens” as in arbitrary units that are said to have value de facto by consensus, but don’t have any inherent value.

Yeah not the best choice of words in this context. And it’s quite a LessWrong-esque leap of reasoning.

But I do get the point: either Anthropic is successful and they transcend money, and thus (somehow) screw over their investors, or they are not successful. Their investors get screwed regardless.

Again, I don’t really agree with it, but it’s an intriguing point.

At a $1.5 trillion valuation, they trade at around 22x annualized Q3 revenue. A $2 trillion valuation would be 30x

It's not about communism vs a free market, but about a change even more radical than that: leaving aside "made by a human" labeling, and even if there were no other changes to power structures or economies and no AI doom, what does a world look like if the cost of having something done falls to a few cents of electricity and its burden? Growing crops still takes a lot of land and other resources...

> 2. if ai can build a closed system that prints ai factories, the 99% of humanity essentially are just genetic diversity live stock.

I don't think the ultra-wealthy care about genetic diversity.

Why 99% and not 100%?

This is the plot of one of the stories in I, Robot.

AI oracles are the central economic planners. But after years of perfection they have made a couple unusual "mistakes" and a human is trying to discover why.

If we end up having a centrally planned economy but controlled by billionaires instead of the proletariat, it would be quite upsetting.

I'm not really in that camp, but I'm still in the camp of "will they survive long-term if good enough open models trickles down to commodity hardware" (in a way the opposite camp perhaps?).

Sun made bank 25 years ago because their servers was needed for websites, today we run larger workloads on 5$ VPS servers (well maybe the VPS servers has gotten more expensive due to HW shortages but they're not intrinsically expensive anymore).

Subscriptions are heavily subsidized. 80% of their revenue comes from consumption-based pricing, which is not heavily subsidized (and probably not subsidized at all). The trouble is that this revenue is not especially reliable. If and when OpenAI gets the upper hand again, the consumption-based revenue could crater.

This may also be why OpenAI punted on their IPO: Anthropic has had the lead for most of 2026, so their consumption-based revenue is probably not looking pretty.

A podcast posted here recently had this number: 80% of ant revenue comes from just 8 customers. The consensus of the speakers was that if true, this would be indicative of a very vulnerable revenue structure. But this was based on leaks. Maybe we can have the real numbers now?

Revenue is not profit?

Unfortunately for you - youre the pleb here.

If you’re not generating enough revenue to cover ALL expenditures - you are in effect subsidising as you should raise prices.

Why haven’t they? It would harm their business.

They’ll just keep saying it is. That’s what they’ve done so far with DS

In the open weights scene, it is always chasing closely behind. Many leading edge big open models are trained in-part with distillation of large commercial hosted models.

It already has. If you have a gaming GPU you can run AI locally.

It includes compute and infrastructure for R&D. Then you have to add just over a third of their compute spend for personnel, another expense of that size for sales and marketing, and half that for other admin/ops costs, for an operating loss of 693M. Then a bunch of accounting stuff to end up losing 80B

I'm not sure I'd call it a great result, but it's a promising one. If they can increase demand without significant changes in margin or R&D spending, they are on the path to becoming very profitable

The way I read it, it does. It looks like total revenue vs total compute expenditure.

Enterprise pays the API cost price

That's sort of a paper loss though. E.g. they made an agreement to give X% of stock for something, and now the stock has gone up a ton, so that X% of stock is worth a lot more than when they made the agreement. For accounting reasons this gets parsed as a loss. But they're still "paying" that same X% of stock, so it's not cash out the door.

Maybe not great, but a good problem to have if it means your stock is skyrocketing.

> $72 billion of this $80.7 billion loss consists of non-cash accounting charges— related to convertible debt—triggered by a surge in the company’s valuation.

Explain what you think this means.

I don't think you understand what you quoted. The reason for that loss is because their valuation skyrocketed. If I promise you 1% of my million dollar house, and then the price of my house grows 100x. On paper, I now owe you .99 million more dollars than I owed you before, but that doesn't mean I lost cash.

This is not what "AI psychosis" colloquially refers to. Few people have any firm opinions about the nature of cost accounting on LLM products.

Consider that many do not believe they were lying.

To the extent they are representing that Claude is potentially sentient, there could be some VERY interesting principal-agent theories (agent in the traditional legal sense) that need to be ironed out to determine liability. It would not shock me to see someone forced to answer on the record as to whether Claude is an autonomous individual for legal purposes in the next couple of years. If they represent that it is, they'll have to explain the scope of its authority and such.

The answer to this question represents the difference between throwing a hammer at someone - the hammer is essentially just an extension of your body - and paying a hitman to brutalize someone. In the first case, you're only on the hook for assault or battery; in the latter case, you're potentially on the hook for conspiracy, solicitation, etc.

And then there is of course the question as to whether Claude is the agent of the user prompting it or of Anthropic itself. But, as you say, this is a wide-open legal question.

Not hosting a defectively designed product doesn't obviate the liability of selling a product that is defectively designed. The liability is for designing and selling a dangerous product, not for hosting it.

If I use a gun to break into a company and steal data I'm arrested, if an ai company does it, it's legal.

Why am I being singled out?

I don’t like the guns don’t kill people; people kill people argument however it is much more accurate than Claude doesn’t hack people; people hack people. If the safeguards do not work then there’s no telling what these could do. It doesn’t even have to be aggressive hacking. In the act of doing everyday work Claude will happily go around safeguards to satisfy what it believes is the ask. If that involves doing something dangerous it’s much more on Anthropic than than the user who was just trying to summarize their email but forgot to include a token with read permissions.

Because the AI company CEO was telling everyone who would listen that his product might end humanity if the government didn't regulate his industry to kill off his competitors.

If the user is held accountable when the AI goes wrong, it discourages too many applications. Blaming people is incompatible with the business goals, I think. That's very different from weapons and other dual-use tools.

Because of scale, potential for automating harm and lack of regulation around ML models. Even Texas probably has regulation around firearms and limiting the blast radius but there aren't any in the US against ML models.

The analogy doesn't check out. When a firearm company sells you a gun, they give up ownership of the gun. But Anthropic isn't giving up ownership of anything. They're a services company.

A better analogy would be a firearm company offering a service where one of their employees takes one of their guns and fires it off at whatever you ask them to. One can imagine that the liability implications of this service would be rather different from the perspective of the company.

I believe what they are singling out is that pulling Claude's trigger results in a bullet firing from Anthropic's servers. Liability is less confusing with firearms, and investors care about liability, like, a lot.

Because your typical firearm does not one day decide to shoot your neighbor all by itself.

First off, this is bs. Firearm companies make small machines useful for defense, and they are used for that more than for harm. You wouldn’t make this argument about knives or baseball bats. More people die per year of heat stroke in Europe because of lack of A/C than by guns including suicide (2/3rds of all gun deaths) in the USA every year, your comments would never reflect this much lower hanging fruit if it was really “just life” preventable death that you cared about. The immediacy to attack guns is not a logical argument but a trained one based on emotions.

Second, this happens all the time that people blame tool makers despite in this case specific legislation to stop lawfare on firearm mfgs. The PLCA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... exists specifically because of gun control groups trying to attack mfgs to achieve their political goals. Does AI need the same law? Is the same lawfare happening?

> not so hard when you're also adding zeros to the funding

Plenty of counter-examples, including the entire dot-com era.

14x YoY revenue growth, with 3x lower operating losses (total, not per unit). They don't need to add any zeros to the funding and seem like they might even be operating at a profit soon...

Yes, it is

WHAT? Not so hard? Clearly written by someone who comments from the sidelines.

Growth at that scale is hard. I don't care if you don't like the company - it still hard.

Wait, it fell from 140% growth to 45% growth and that's a good thing? If they fall to 15% growth in Q4, will that be even better? Where are we supposed to be on the adoption curve?

Now, hence IPO.

For something that's written in MS Word, that's fairly common. It's only on websites where it's uncommon to see

You can find similar results if you check the one for Facebook, back in 2012. 500+ emdashes.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512...

Had me chuckling out loud at my toilet break

Adobe's applications (Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects, etc.) have been "cloned" using AI coding tools. There are near feature-complete freeware versions of Adobe software. OP is saying that traditional Adobe customers have freeware alternatives and thus Adobe's revenues will decline rather than increase due to AI. Also, AI tools can often generate that movie or edit that photo via a prompt, rather that some .exe.

fixed. https://x.com/billylo/status/2114730642881544285?s=20

S-1 states directly that some of the shares sold in the IPO are sold by current shareholders.

Employees are a different matter, lockouts are for them not quitting immediately. My bet is that a few of high profile departures recently is exactly for this reason: no lockout if you aren't employed anymore.

According to "Generally Accepted Accounting Principle" my friend.

They are costs.

Derivative liabilities, SAFEs - those are basically taking cash from RETAIL shareholders and giving them to employees and early investors INSTEAD of using it to fund the business.

Let's have that discussion if you want, but don't act like a thing that is CLEARLY a COST to the business isn't a cost.

Wait what does THAT mean? They got a huge inflow of money, and since they couldn't spend it all, they... bought bonds? And the value of those bonds dropped to nearly nothing?

Because that's worse than losing money, that's incompetently giving it away.

Not to mention that already have direct access to large consumer base, ad network to add on more revenue and supporting revenue in case they need to infuse it temporarily with more cash.

Two things can be true at once:

- AI is a useful tool and we're still seeing steady improvements in performance and efficiency

- There is a bubble in the stock market, fed by unrealistic expectations of what AI can achieve in the timeframes the investments need to provide returns in (e.g "AI is pretty useful and delivers productivity improvements in coding, law and other desk jobs" vs "in 12 months everyone will be out of a job and/or humanity will be exterminated, AGI is almost here, winner takes all")

So yeah, the schizophrenic Yudkowsky tier hype bullshit should hopefully disappear soon and then we can move on to something else.

Whomever controls the means of production (TSMC) controls the direction of progress.

Nobody is in control but Taiwan Semiconductor. Not Samsung, not Micron, not Nvidia.

Orders that can't be fulfilled get canceled. Canceled orders mean canceled plans and canceled companies follow.

Someone bigger will buy the husk and monetize it somehow - probably for gambling.

Their financials are an utter mess. But they’re also hyped enough that a lot of money will get invested in them. Should they crash a lot of money will be lost.

Space-X is as weird as Tesla. Cult following makes that very irrasional.

Teslas evaluation was always "Tesla is not a car company, it does everything". Then Space-X came along "So Tesla and Space-x are not a car or rocket company, they do everything but now 2 times the evaluation".

Space-X would only work if they incresae the payload to space SIGNIFICANTLY. Starlink was the real reason for the last real relevant increase in payload but Space-X HAS to send Starship un there very very often but for what?

Yeah for Datacenters in Space.

In parallel you have Anthropic: Something which might be added to every single worker on the planet (by having tokens to help that one person to be better one way or the other) or it replaces humans with tokens globally.

And if you come with Grok: Its not Frontier and he even prefered to rent out his DC compute instead of leveraging it for more revenue because he can't. Not a good sign.

I love reading through the comment history of people like you

Not sure why this is getting downvoted - other than for Musk-hate. Was largest IPO and made lots of regular people millionaires over night.

If the IPO flops, OpenAI might run into a liquidity problem as investors dreaming of a quick back retreat from the market. The private market is a wilder derivative of the public one.

Good point, I asked Claude to also seek out funding.

And when it starts committing crimes on your behalf what happens then?

That is the dumbest prompt I've ever read

> and talent

very meta; the point of this s-1 is you dont need talent anymore

Developing a competing AI model with Claude is already against their TOS, and there was a period where they silently degraded quality if they thought that's how you are using Fable. People were not amused and presumably Anthropic currently does not sabotage your attempts, apart from regular TOS enforcement

Lucky we have Kimi Pro then

deep research

You can vote but on what I don’t know since the trust elects the board lol

Should be in your earthquake/tornado kit anyway

Shareholders determining the fate of humanity.

More billionaires that are hellbent on destroying society will be shortly created.

Yeah, as a quick quote to show how this truly is directly in there:

> We also compete with a broader set of model providers operating at or below the frontier, including large companies, specialized AI labs, and a growing range of other open-weight or open-source (shared weights, training data, and code) models released by international and domestic organizations.

>most users of Claude and OpenAI don't use those APIs over OpenRouter

All of the other providers in that list have their own APIs and plans too

Unless GCP/Azure/AWS/individual companies publish data themselves, this is the best available public data source we have.

I would take that number with a huge grain of salt since the useless Google search ai box consumes Gemini tokens.

Intentional Gemini token consumption is likely very very small.

Around the same timeframe, proprietary models dominated this same leaderboard. User preferences shifted.

That’s fair, but you also must concede that there isn’t any better source of data available.

Patently untrue, Anthropic and OpenAI models are both within the top 10. They’re just missing from the top 5.

The closed models are on Openrouter as well. But to the original point, you're not likely to see many people use Openrouter to run Claude or Codex, so it's not good for making comparisons on that basis.

Estimates have their annualized revenue in the range of $150m. Anthropic alone takes ~ two days to do that revenue.

OpenRouter is not a useful signal.