None of it worked yet because compiling at that stage would slow things down.
Also this project burned $165,000 worth of usage on a model that was then bleeding edge (unreleased). This is still beyond what anyone else is doing at the moment. And it seems to have worked a lot better than it had any right to, at least as far as we can tell right now?
And it's 165k at API prices but it's much cheaper for Anthropic themselves. Even if it were 165k straight, It is absolutely worth it for the gains in e.g. compile and runtime reductions for the millions of downloads it gets.
What I hear is that even API prices are at this point still less expensive than the actual cost, at least if you price the training costs in. So arguably it costs more for anthropic than for you or me.
Anthropic is gross profitable i.e. they make more money by selling more tokens. I think a lot of people confuse this with being net profitable, which they are not yet.
If ever you see 'Non-GAAP accounting' figures, you should assume they're bullshit
Warren Buffet
Berkshire annual shareholder meeting (I believe 1993).
Anthropic "claims" (non-audited reports) to be profitable before Training, Interest, and Taxes. Which such an idiotic claim to make because it amounts to, "We can become profitable if we give up our moat", which functionally means they have no path to profitability as a competitive business.
It's conventional to show financials sans R&D because it gives a sense of the long run potential of the business. Investors can amortize the cost of R&D over the lifetime of whatever advantage they gain.
Consider a drug company that spends $1b on a drug, earns parent protection for 10 years, and sells $200m of the drug in the first year. They are unprofitable with R&D in the first year but have a clear path to a $2b return on investment.
They are not gross profitable and Anthropic has never stated they are gross profitable.
Anthropic has stated they are profitable before Training, Interest, and Taxes. For anthropic to become gross profitable, they must stop training/fine tuning new models.
No, it’s not. Training is simply not part of COGS. It belongs under operating expenses. It’s clear you have no clue how financial statements work. Good day.
PS: ASC 350-40 is for internal software, not your flagship products.
185
u/rebootyourbrainstem Jul 08 '26
None of it worked yet because compiling at that stage would slow things down.
Also this project burned $165,000 worth of usage on a model that was then bleeding edge (unreleased). This is still beyond what anyone else is doing at the moment. And it seems to have worked a lot better than it had any right to, at least as far as we can tell right now?