Is anyone keeping track of all these “partnerships” and “investments” in one place? This is all turning into a ton of what looks like PR fodder that appears to go nowhere.

▲

romaniv 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ed Zitron[1] has a lot of articles and podcast episodes on these deals. The nice thing about it is that he occasionally revisits the old announcements to check what happened with them. Apparently a lot of these deals just evaporate after prolonged contact with reality.

[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/

	▲	danielbln a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ed Zitron is a terrible source, he is so staunchly anti AI that he is effectively blind. Once in a while he'll be right by pure chance, but I wouldn't rely on any of it.
	▲	davnicwil an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think a tell that many of these deals likely aren't real and are basically just PR is the numbers are super round and digestable. That's a clear signal that little analysis has gone into the numbers and, most generously, there's nothing but the shape of a deal the details of which will be ironed out and adjusted in practice. I get that the amounts of funding and capital being sat on for the respective parties are collossal and lead to rounding that doesn't make sense from the point of view of an individual any more (what's a few million at this scale, just round up to nearest 10, etc) but deal sizes of literally round numbers of 100s start to stretch credibility on whether any real analysis was involved. In fact it'd be a ridiculous coincidence if it had been. They're the kind of figures where you'd recheck your calculations to check it's right as it seems too perfectly round.
	▲	hnthrow0287345 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This stuff helps prevent the bubble popping, which means when they want the bubble to pop, they stop announcing these deals, giving them a great lever of profit. Crazy how they can just lie to this extent without consequences. Or still get paid millions for making bad deals, meaning incompetence

▲

enugu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This doesn't seem to be investment focussed activity, but rather extending Claude credits for education and research. Which is a good thing, independent of other bad things that might be happening.

▲

colechristensen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And a sizable tax deduction.

▲

chadash 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IANAA, but pretty sure you can only deduct a donation against business profit. Are you suggesting that Anthropic is running at a profit?

	▲	goodthink 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Net Operating Losses (NOLs) in one year can offset taxes owed in future years. It works for personal taxes too if it's a "casualty" loss.

▲

yreg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who profits from that deduction and how?

▲

nozzlegear 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Anthropic profits from the PR, for one. And they likely hook these institutions on their products in the long term, for two – much like I was "stuck" on Azure until recently, thanks to their free startup credits pointing me to it a decade ago.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

mikepurvis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One assumes Anthropic given it's them doing the donating, but you also have to be actually making a profit to be paying tax.

	▲	trollbridge 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are ways one can engage in financial engineering (is "accounting engineering" a term yet?) where despite not making a profit, you segregate a tax break, tax credit, charitable deduction, etc. into some other entity and then can sell that off as an asset that some other business that is making a profit buys and writes off against its own profits.

▲

willchis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I make sure I frequently talk about running a marathon someday, just so all my friends think I'm in better shape than I am.

▲

giancarlostoro 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Compared to the insanely circular deals that OpenAI made? I have slight more confidence in Anthropics partnerships honestly. This is the Gates foundation dropping 200 million for use of Claude for medical research, unlike OpenaAIs weird "we will buy stuff off you in the future" but I don't know that they actually ever have or did.

▲

georgemcbay 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A lot of the recent news just makes me think much worse of Anthropic.

If you're going to partner with a charitable Gates, choose the good one (though to be fair, she's probably going to be far more discerning).

And Anthropic's decision to become complicit in poisoning Memphis with Grok's methane turbines already put the lie to the idea they are the conscientious ones when it comes to large AI companies.