zlacker

> As discussed previously, OpenAI lost $5 billion and Anthropic $5.3 billion in 2024, with OpenAI expecting to lose upwards of $8 billion and Anthropic — somehow — only losing $3 billion in 2025. I have severe doubts that these numbers are realistic, with OpenAI burning at least $3 billion in cash on salaries this year alone, and Anthropic somehow burning two billion dollars less on revenue that has, if you believe its leaks, increased 500% since the beginning of the year.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/why-everybody-is-losing-money-on...

>>altman+(OP)
You may have posted the wrong link, because what you posted was not a source, but rather an amatuer blogger's oponion about what anthrotic's and OpenAI revenue and losses are. Do you have the correct link to actual evidence that Anthropic has losses in the billions?

>>NewsaH+kD2
> Privately held companies often disclose revenue figures if they are growing quickly, but keep the rest of their finances a secret because they often tell a far less impressive story. The approach is especially true for AI developers that don’t want to disclose the extraordinary rate at which they are burning cash. The Journal is reporting Anthropic’s base case projections, not its more optimistic forecasts.

> The Information earlier reported on some of the financial figures for both companies.

> The documents show that OpenAI expects to burn $9 billion after generating $13 billion in sales this year, while Anthropic expects to burn almost $3 billion on $4.2 billion in sales—roughly 70% of revenue for both.

https://archive.is/e7pg9 / https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-anthropic-profitability-e... (paywall)

>>altman+tA3
Thanks for the link, however, this is not saying what you think it is saying. This is talking about expenses, not losses. Saying that Anthropic has expenses in the billions is as meaningless as saying that Google has expenses in the hundreds of billions. This exemplifies why I hate it when people use amateur blogs to try to show that AI companies are failing; they use amateurish interpretations that are usually wrong, and a lot of people latch on to them because it confirms their own ideals

>>NewsaH+jb4
Please read the article. When it says it'll burn $x on $x revenue, it means the burn is not expenses but the net loss. Here is another article that says the same thing:

https://fortune.com/2025/11/12/openai-cash-burn-rate-annual-...

Do you really think Anthrophic's annual expenses are in single digit billions? Or OpenAI's annual expenses being less than $9 billion?

> people latch on to them because it confirms their own ideals

I think this applies universally, even to yourself, no? You're so deadset on believeing Anthrophic is not losing billions, you're debating semantics and borderline insulting my reading skills.