zlacker

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+(OP)
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.