> The idea of removing model training from your costs is a little wild tbh.

Yeah, I didn't believe they'd claim something like that. But yes indeed, from the article:

> Anthropic's gross margins are above 80% before accounting for revenue shared with distribution partners, including Amazon (AMZN.O), opens new tab, and the cost of training its model,

Is this how all AI companies calculate if they're profitable or not, by removing the highest costs? What a circus.

▲

_diyar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Anthropic has told shareholders that its adjusted operating income will be positive for a second straight quarter, the Financial Times reported on Sunday, citing multiple people with knowledge of the matter.

Note this claim is about „operating profit“, which commonly is the revenue - operating expenses (COGS, rent, payroll). This does not include RnD cost.

>Anthropic's gross margins are above 80% before accounting for revenue shared with distribution partners, including Amazon (AMZN.O), and the cost of training its model, the newspaper said.

Gross margin is typically (revenue - COGS) / revenue. Thus, both statements above seem generally in line with commonly accepted accounting standards.

	▲	yread 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you are sharing revenue (royalties, licenses based on revenue, costs that scale directly with revenue) doesnt that count as cost of goods sold?

▲

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

The way I read it, they are convincing the investors that they can fool the larger population convincingly. At the end of the day the investor term is misnomer for big institutional investors, given that these people are managing other people money where they always make out a certain percentage of fees despite the outcome.

▲

SlightlyLeftPad an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I believe this is a new accounting method called “phantasmagorical accounting.”