top 63 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 97 points 2 weeks ago (21 children)

The loss, up from $13 billion a year earlier, was driven by $72 billion in accounting charges tied to changes in the value of financial instruments Anthropic issued to raise money

This right here is how all of this will come crashing down. Anthropic and OpenAI, along with several associated companies, are using accounting tricks to hide their debts and obligations. These two are trying to maintain hype for investors so they can cash in on an IPO with total disregard for long-term fiscal sustainability. At some point the bill will come due, and you can bet the C-Suite will have already made out like bandits.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    Don't forget, though, that there's another cashflow that they're banking on: total surveillance.

    AI can't do a lot of things, but the thing it's most suited for is creating a society run like a prison to try and keep the discontented masses in check.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

    Not enough people realize this. They think the component shortage is a side effect, but it’s to push you towards cloud services on underpowered devices that rely on it.

    Imagine the censorship when every service is monitored and controlled by them. Imagine the market capture when they can see everyone’s financials and trade secrets. When they can cut off journalists and activists with one click.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Haven't heard anything new lately, but there is a push to eliminate physical currency for, what I presume, is a similar reason -> make everything trackable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I think this will backfire too. I think they way underestimate the amount of people already using "underpowered devices" that will just continue to do so without the new cloud services shit.

    Basically everyone I know us using a 5-10+ year old laptop, for example. And they just use it fine, sure it's pokey, and it's not everyone, but it's a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I'm not even sure it's great at that. Is this not a function of any industry struggling to find a usecase eventually ending up with the largest US employer and cash cow: the DoD?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    LLMs ('AI'), not so great, but it can get (probabilistic, but fascists don't care) descriptions of video feeds into easily searched text. Gobs of GPUs in datacenters paired with surveillance devices all over the place however presents a greater threat, where there's an (evil) will, a way will be forthcoming. Nice of Ukraine to point out how fragile they are. There's a deathstar analogy there somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Yeah, the type of people pushing this don't even care about the inaccuracy either. If it "catches a black man" with facial recognition, even if it's the wrong person it won't matter "they are all criminal thugs anyway." See also the ICE bull shit and basically deporting anyone even remotely Mexican looking, citizen or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    This right here is how all of this will come crashing down

    No, this is pretty normal, and more importantly, doesn't actually cost the company cash. They gave lenders bonds that can be converted to stock, so this loss on their books is pure paper loss, the same way wealth in owning stock in this money losing company is pure paper wealth.

    These numbers are just illustration for simplicity, but imagine a company borrowing $20 billion and telling the lender that you'll either pay back the $20 billion plus interest, or they can opt to convert it into stock worth 10% of the company. When the company is worth $100 billion, the bondholders won't convert to stock. But if the value of the company shoots up on paper to where that same stock would be worth $100 billion, the lenders would rather take the stock than the cash repayment. And because it's worth $80 billion more, the company will have to record that on the books as replacing $20 billion in bonds for $100 billion in stock, and an $80 billion loss compared to their last statement.

    But look at the underlying financial cash flow. When that happens, the company actually takes $20 billion in debt off their books. They don't have to repay that loan anymore. So it improves their cash flow position at exactly the same time that they're booking a loss.

    The whole thing will come crashing down for totally different reasons, relating to operational cash flow, not the actual accounting shenanigans where one kind of paper number gets converted to another kind of paper number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    While you explained this correctly (as far as I understand it), there is part of this everyone keeps making an assumption on the outcome, the "or they can opt to convert it into stock" part. I'm really curious what the interest rate they gave the early investors to entice them when the company was much further from a sure thing. If the interest rate was decent, that final number is going to start becoming awfully enticing to just collect on instead of getting stock that might collapse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    That's the tradeoff, of course. If a company liquidates, it pays its debts first, then its preferred stockholders, then its common stockholders. But each step down the line gives a greater upside in exchange for less certainty in getting paid at all. Bondholders get paid at higher priority, but have the exact amount they get paid defined by a specific mathematical formula. So they won't get any additional benefit from the company becoming super valuable. Or they can get in the back of the line to see what unlimited upside they have from the company's value going up a lot.

    Also, Anthropic's bonds aren't exactly low interest. They're right there at the edge between junk bond and investment grade.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I dunno, isn't this the same scheme that the ride share companies and food delivery services?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    With the difference that all those services mostly outsource their asset costs to their drivers or have very little investment there. Unlike anthropic who have billions in costs related to all the compute they need to service their customers (obligations to other companies, datacenters and, not to forget, ever rising interest on all their debt).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 351 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    And that's without paying royalties to content creators as they should be required to do

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 137 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    also before court cases for defamation. Two cases in Germany hold Google executives responsible for false claims (by the Google AI) of sexual crime claims against an innocent man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 81 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Good. If you want to make AI a form of communication then that's the voice of your company. You're endorsing whatever it says.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    or counting the $1.5 trillion in debt the big AI players are hiding in subsidiaries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    yeah the circle-jerk nvidia has created with coreweave and so many others just to wreck the gpu and memory markets, all so these hideously expensive AI racks can SIT IN THEIR FUCKING PACKAGING ON A LOADING DOCK because they don't have power or cooling built is mindboggling

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago

    "The court finds Anthropic guilty and orders them to relinquish the whole of their company to the Group Representing All Artists".

    Artists : "Wait -".

    Dario Amodei : "Fuck yes! Good luck paying back those 80 billions, losers!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    All those loans are getting hot. They're starting to toss them around and trying to hide them.

    I have strong doubts they can ever make this particular approach to AI work at all, let alone in time to cover their bets.

    This path looks like a dead end. But, I don't know jack about shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    The issue is they are too expensive, it's not really a limitation of the technology, well it might be, but that's not the issue here. They are paying Nvidia Billions for their entire 2026/27 GPU runs and they can't get the customers to cover that. It's like $200 pm for their max plan. It's almost cheeper to hire a human in India.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Why haven't they just asked Claude how to make money with their business model? /s

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    They have.

    1. Wait for excited CEOs to fire all their staff.

    2. Crank up the prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    2 only works if regulatory capture in place to prevent cheaper competition from open models.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    That's why they keep trying to play the "AI is so dangerous" narrative and why you keep hearing about "rogue AI agents" which in reality someone had to instruct to break the law, and they probably used some of their no-guardrails internal-use models (so Claude Mythos rather than Fable).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Claude Mythos and Fable are the exact same model, the branding only reflects which one has more restrictive classifiers in front of it during deployment. But the weights are identical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    This IPO is going to be one of the biggest rug pulls in history.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 weeks ago

    Yes. If you follow the money, investors in OpenAI are the usual suspects, a Kushner in there (admittedly the "best" kushner) and the early investors were guaranteed returns of up to 18% (bank CD currently around 5.3%) which stemmed from a $500B injection from the US government. Not only will it be a rug pull, but a government built one. Truly appaling, we let the fox in the henhouse.

    Cant have Healthcare for our people, but can pump and dump the world economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 37 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yup, because they're still losing hundreds of dollars for every dollar spent. Their economics still rely on a delusion that the hardware outlay is a fixed cost that can be recovered after model training by selling cheaper compute. Instead, models continue to be released not only to match competition, but because models still do not do a fraction of what they are promised and being sold to do. So capital costs are not fixed.

    So AI hyperscalers have a lose/lose/lose/lose choice of either growing at a rate that requires unsustainable subsidies, stopping growth and admitting models can't do what they and a thousand other startups have been selling them for, charging actual costs, or any combination of the three.

    If people were charged anything near the actual costs, much less with a profit margin, demand would implode fast enough to create a sonic boom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Add to this that incremental improvement comes at exponentially more and more cost. So they spend ungodly amounts more in hopes that the next incremental improvement will push them over the magic line beyond where the are.

    Some impressive feats but the issues holding it back from the 'replace the whole economy' sort of ambition they imagine are very stubborn. Notably it still confidently declares incorrect information (a significant volume of software developement works around by rigging auto-retries until it stumbles into 'correctness', and of course the people pumping out slop art/books aren't bound by 'correctness') and they still have no clear path to autonomous control of humanoid robotics (as crazy advanced as the online GenAI experience, they are still struggling to demonstrate even the most basic manual labor tasks).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 3 weeks ago

    Sound investment. Sounds like the echo down a dark tunnel.

  • source
  • [–] 62 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    The ai crash of 2026 can’t come soon and fast enough

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 2 weeks ago

    C’mon. Implode already.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Can't wait to end up holding the bag for this because they're "too big to fail" again.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    So much of their revenue is government contracts. Especially with the Pentagon.

    Really can't be overstated how they've wormed themselves into the Military Industrial Complex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    A lot of their revenue is also investment from hardware and software vendors that are using the revenue from the AI companies for those investments.

    It's like the Enron scheme, but instead of one company inventing fake companies to move money around to increase revenue and drive up prices to hide the fact they're hemorrhaging money while the C-suite tries to divest their own money from the company, it's multiple companies working together to move money around to increase revenue and drive up prices to hide the fact they're hemorrhaging money while the major investors try to find a way to cash out.

    Anthropic is anxious to do their IPO because they know their business model is fucked, and their shareholders want out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    they’re hemorrhaging money

    Are they? This is productive capital being rented out at a profit to the end users. And the end users are, as often as not, big public institutions with near bottomless accounts.

    I might argue they are rapidly exhausting scare natural resources. And you're welcome to do the material analysis on whether dumping 50 gal of water and 100 Mbtus of energy through a digital engine to make a "Farting Peach Says It's Voting For The Green Party in 2026!" viral Facebook ad is benefiting humanity.

    But merely observing that money is changing hands between big economic players doesn't let us know if something is profitable. You're describing the basic functions of a financial economy.

    Anthropic is anxious to do their IPO because they know their business model is fucked

    That's the popular line. People said the same thing about Tesla when it went public.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 weeks ago

    See here's the thing: it isn't really their money, so they don't give a shit. If it was, things would be... ✨different✨

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    1 comment in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post