[no-name-here]

Anthropic losing their ability to release new models to most customers (and thereby revenue, and thereby ability to train new models) makes you think investors will value it more highly than if they could release new models to everyone who wanted to pay them?

[rf15]

Since training/inference/datacenters are a money sink (as you can read in any financial insights of anthropic, openai, etc.) having more customers might actually be detrimental.

Just look at the consumer side: the current attitude of most people is they'd rather not pay the actual cost of the LLM they're using. Therefore the big money is probably in an IPO by boosting your product to be so unfathomably potent, it must be ridiculously valuable to own and control.

It also helps to pretend it's actually too dangerous for the general public: high-paying government contracts only please.

[no-name-here]

> having more customers might actually be detrimental

That could only be true if serving inference to customers was the least profitable part of the business, and that the training side of the business was the more profitable side of the business? Otherwise unless their huge fixed training costs get cheaper if they lose customers, it's only going to be worse?