Yes 65B ARR that Anthropic has is clear indication there is no path to revenue.

Insanity 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry, I should have said "profit path", good catch! They have revenue, but their cost scales with revenue and they're losing more than they are making.

See: https://www.wheresyoured.at/brokenomics/ for an interesting write-up on the economics of AI.

	▲	brookst 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Their costs do not scale linearly with revenue. Inference is expensive, but it's a variable cost. Anthropic's overall costs include massive fixed costs in training, which are the same regardless of usage. It's easy to falsify the claim with a simple experiment: imagine they had no customer at all, $0 in revenue. Their costs would still be massive. If the claim were true, $0 revenue should mean $0 costs, right?
	▲	qaq 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If people are sure they can always short NVIDIA

▲

mrbungie 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How much money does that revenue cost though? If I had to steel-man GPs argument I'd ask for profits rather than revenues.

▲

qaq 11 hours ago | parent [-]

We will see once they go public Dario did claim profit margin on inference is 40% if memory serves me right

▲

mrbungie 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's convenient accounting. The reality is that they can't stop training since they risk losing customers if they do so. So they shouldn't factor it out of profitability analysis.

	▲	qaq 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A lot of factors there we will see how it plays out.

▲

overgard 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes Dario is well known for his honesty

	▲	qaq 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		hence the bit about us learning the actual state of things once they are a public company.