[reticulates]

no, even if we assume their margins are 90% (they are not) they are still losing money because the $200 plans allow for tens of thousands of dollars worth of inference and a huge number of users are milking every cent across multiple accounts. Every “reset” OpenAI and Anthropic do is setting money on fire.

If it were true that they’re making money hand over fist they wouldn’t need to raise tens of billions of dollars every few months.

https://xcancel.com/i/article/2076078865060151465

[dash2]

In Amodei’s Dwarkesh podcast he says that they are constantly estimating the increase in demand for the next leg up, then going out to raise money to build for it. So it’s not necessarily that they are raising money because they are unprofitable.

[reticulates]

How does future demand translate to spend?

Anthropic aren't building out the data centres themselves, they're renting/leasing/borrowing from companies that are doing the actual spend on building out infrastructure. And the data centre companies aren't spending their own money, they're borrowing too (hence Apollo investing in data centres). Anthropic are paying SpaceX ~$1.25bn/month right now for access to more compute, that's $15bn a year, more than what these supposed margins would require in total spend (based on current revenue estimates).

https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex

The SpaceX deal is a great example of Anthropic creating demand, i.e:

> We’ve agreed to a partnership with SpaceX that will substantially increase our compute capacity. This, along with our other recent compute deals, means that we’ve been able to increase our usage limits for Claude Code and the Claude API.

They committed to spending $15bn per year with SpaceX and then increased limits for customers on fixed cost plans, creating more demand without any increase in revenue.

So, sure, it's not necessarily that they are raising money because they are unprofitable, but no alternate explanation makes any sense. The argument that could maybe made in favor is based on announcements like this one:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-invests-50-billion-...

> Today, we are announcing a $50 billion investment in American computing infrastructure, building data centers with Fluidstack in Texas and New York, with more sites to come. These facilities are custom built for Anthropic with a focus on maximizing efficiency for our workloads, enabling continued research and development at the frontier.

You might conclude from that, Anthropic are financing Fluidstack's build out, but they're not.

https://x.com/fluidstack/status/2079250004510728559

Just after that announcement, Fluidstack raised $830 million to build out data centres, none of the money coming from Anthropic. Fluidstack are currently rumored to be raising another $1bn. Anthropic's "$50 billion investment in American computing infrastructure" is just committed spend on renting compute from Fluidstack, a commitment that Fluidstack then use to raise money to actually deliver it. If Anthropic making money hand over fist, they wouldn't need to raise for committed spend.

And thus we return to the original question, how does future demand translate to spend? Actual handing over of dollars?

[OGWhales]

> even if we assume their margins are 90% (they are not)

How do you know they are not?

It will be curious to see the cost of inference for these newly released open weight models and will help give an idea of the actual cost of inference. But for now, I think saying the $200 plans allows for "tens of thousands of dollars worth of inference" provides very little insight when you are measuring the inference cost in API pricing with an unknown margin.

[reticulates]

We don’t “know” because they haven’t released any numbers but the most optimistic estimates (which many people believe are very very optimistic) put it at 60%: https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/anthropic-growth-and-b...

The simple question to ask is, if it is so profitable, where is all the money going? If Anthropic have 90% margins on API usage and API usage is $50bn+ in revenue per year, where is the $45bn going? Why do they need to raise so much cash, constantly?

[user43928]

I am not knowledgeable about their finances.

But I do wonder how a 60% margin would be realistic when Sonnet costs 3-6x more than GLM 5.2 hosted by third party providers.

[loolhahalmao]

they're taking the revenue and spending it on infra they're borrowing money and spending that on infra somehow, they still don't have enough capacity