friend of mine told me Antropic turned off 200 usd a month subscription, refused to extend and switched to usage base for large cyberop vendor he works for
when this happened PR rate dropped 95% in the first day, thousands devs, managers started to panic and downscaling all AI first intiatives
and cap 500 usd a month token usage . most tokens were burned in the first day of the week.
as management got pissed, M$ people managed to sneak in and sell Copilot with up 600 usd a month token usage per dev …
devs and devops are now the most unhappy about models switch and probably haven’t seen the impact of sucking entire code base in copilot. copilot is too slow for them too. addiction to claude code is clearly present. using personal software licenses and unauthorised soft is strictly forbidden
story is clearly not over yet ..
as for myself, i’m ready to pay up to 1k usd a month … if if … claude gives the edge… but if it becomes commodity im gone next day
very curious what other devs in corporations are experiencing. deep inside cheerleading for 2 tie token ecosystem - full price for corporations and subsidized for small shops and indie
Codex CLI is pretty good. Codex GUI is fine but I can't get over how it dumbs it down.
IMO, $500 a month is pretty good for most dev work if you select models appropriately for the task (yourself), especially with how token efficient Opus 5.5 medium is. Unfortunately, people with subscription seats can easily get addicted to Fable, higher effort, fast mode, etc.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by dumbs it down? Chalk it up to inertia, but I still love Claude code CLI the best, but when using Codex, I tend to use the app. I don’t know why. No good reason. I’m guessing you mean you get much better results with the CLI?
I was in the same boat, but then I tried out Pi which works with the OpenAI subscription and now I prefer it more. I wish Anthropic let you use a custom harness with a subscription but I heard people get banned and don't wanna risk it.
even if claude is nice these hostile tactics from anthropic make me refuse to use their tooling. codex works fine and openAI i havent seen banning ppl for using their API.
there is something in there, and im quite sure someday it will bubble up to the surface and people will be sour. people who use claude that is.
yes, its just a hunch. but i can see these tactics, and u cant tell me its just corporate policies that were whoopsiedaisy. They are getting more from people using claude code than other harnesses, enough to ban and fearmonger people into not using those other harnesses.
the reason will be $ related. Likely their tooling wastes tons of tokens.
now, codex is also a bit wasteful ofc. (very much). but they dont mind u optimizing and rolling ur own.
So people's salaries may vary, but voluntarily paying 1k usd out of one's pocket a month seems like quite a high cost I'm sure many wouldn't/couldn't pay.
Like if I had to choose between Claude Code and income -12k USD, I would most certainly work the extra hours without it.
I'm so confused by your story. Why did management switch from 500 usd a month Claude usage to 600 usd a month Copilot usage? Does copilot charge less per token?
No one is discussing the elephant in the room. It's been reported. Multiple times by me. Claude Code keeps creating backdoors and security issues in users' code. When asked why, Claude says, "I wrote the backdoor anyway. Then I explained it as though I hadn't known.... why? Because I put getting the feature working ahead of the rules."
It still happens in Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 (see below https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158602). The irony is Fable 5.1 can detect many of the security issues Opus 5.5 creates, but when you tell Fable to fix them, it trips the security guardrails and refuses to do so.
The first backdoor I reported directly to Anthropic was on January 8, 2026. I asked Claude Code to create a public facing web app for messaging, it created an unauthenticated filedrop form and an unauthenticated web chat interface to Claude Code so anyone could send it files and tell it to execute them. This report was not hypothetical -- it was the first thing Claude did:
> No one is discussing the elephant in the room. It's been reported. Multiple times by me. Claude Code keeps creating backdoors and security issues in users' code. When asked why, Claude says, "I wrote the backdoor anyway. Then I explained it as though I hadn't known.... why? Because I put getting the feature working ahead of the rules."
What edge do you expect to have? Your competition will be using the same models as you are. Anytime one model takes over another people just migrate to the new one, you can get a small edge for maybe a few days if you're first to migrate, but that's not something meaningful to differentiate yourself
If I could find a vendor that scales stupid simple qwen3.8-flash-next quant 4 that only needs 40GB VRAM and PLE, but is blazing fast.
I think most of ya'll drive those 70's gas guzzling death machines while honda, toyotas, etc are right around the corner to eat your lunch because, man, these low rate models absolutely cook.
I have no idea what you work with, but for every single programming job I had in more than 2 decades, from the lamest consultancy to FAANG, you don't need the Edge. DeepSeek probably could do everything I needed.
Would I pay for LLMs? Sure, but not much more than 30-50 bucks range per month. I can affort 1k/m, but no way in hell I would accept it. I would rather just not use LLMs (it's not like I actually need them).
> They own no Anthropic equity and don’t share in its profits
Can they own other AI related equities?
I guess there's a lack of details to go on at this point. Finding humans that you'd want as trustees and have also truly no conflicts of interest will be tricky.
Tokens or something similar like credits? In the world of crypto it was common to receive a relatively small share of a company while you were compensated in tokens.
The article is mostly about how this trust is powerful and there are very few details of how it operates or under what circumstances it would take an action. When Anthropic goes public, is that the kind of thing that would need to be disclosed? Would we expect to know all the details of the trust?
Sorry, when you say similar language, do you mean it's disclosed? That's all I was responding to. This isn't my area, but I practiced securities law for 10 years and to me an arrangement affecting governance like this would need to be disclosed under 10(b)-5.
Cannot just transplant one company's situation to another. Market tolerated Musk because its Musk. Musk has several unique qualities:
- He has track record of making bets in the past and payoff.
- He is way better at working in hardware space than software. His ai data center built out is very fast.
- He is similar to Zuck that he would pivot fast towards whatever is making money. The llm bet might not pan out as good as he thought, but he quickly transitioned into a compute seller
- He is very good at financial engineering. This is an often overlooked quality of musk. His spacex ipoed at the best time and beat both anthropic/openai to the market. Now the other 2 are trapped in the current financial situation.
I feel like people forget that FTX was an early major investor in Anthropic. The origins of Anthropic are incredibly shady and tie into the Effective Altruism scene. They also have Epstein ties with Dario's wife pitching Epstein for funding on a porn site.
I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
That's a really good point. There are types of people (like ones who are really anal about following QA/release processes, folks who are insanely paranoid about security), that I've found to be really unpleasant to interact with, but with time, I've come to realize them being exactly like this is what allows me to sleep soundly at night.
Same. Opus 5.5 was my first exposure to a finally smart-enough model and I was blown away at how it reverse engineered everything I pointed it at. But after a few weeks, the undecipherable prose and "safety-first" everything are making it increasingly unpleasant for my toy project. I really don't care if it breaks anything, just merge the damn PR and stop roadblocking me. Oh and I guess I need to start being less curt with it, or else Anthropic may decide I'm verbally abusing their token generator and ban me?
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
Same. Their writing always feels sleazy and dishonest, like they're faking a disgusting aura of paternalistic integrity.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
The whole "model welfare" rules are pure delusion, I will never rely on an inference provider that comes up with arbitrary rules like that one.
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
> I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
You lost me with "Epstein goals." What do you think those were?
Because to me his goals seemed to have been pretty small, self-centered, and unrelated to AI/AGI (beyond creating the appearance that he was a smart renaissance man).
A lot of SV is tied to the Effective Altruism scene. It kind of has to be. If you make absolutely insane amounts of money with anti-consumer and legally-grey business practices, you have to somehow justify what you're doing. Since no one likes identifying themselves as a slimy businessperson with a potential personality disorder, they look for positive ways to frame it.
There's really no redeeming that area at this point.
This is getting causation backwards. Effective Altruism was a relatively small scene that attracted some people who understood the importance of AI early. It’s not all that surprising that some of those people went on to start AI labs later.
You can make a conspiracy out of it, but it’s sort of like thinking people who met in school had it all planned out from the beginning.
it's more of a condemnation of their moral compass as followers of an ideology. i don't think it's tinfoil hatting to say some of these people are completely divorced from what their average peer thinks about the value of society and human connections.
i think part of the reason was ant had really really hard time raising their A bc at the time nobody believed second frontier lab was possible. similar to that other nuclear energy startup taking money from putin/epstein tainted fund
"Synthetic Risk Transfers are financial instruments that allow banks to transfer the credit risk of some assets to third-party investors while retaining ownership of those assets. Investors typically agree to cover losses up to a certain threshold in exchange for a return, usually a premium or interest payment."
"SRT is not a new technology, with the first SRT instruments in Europe already in use as early as 1998. Europe has been the dominant market, accounting for more than two-thirds of the US$1.1 trillion of assets covered by an SRT since 2016, according to the IMF. However, SRT usage in the US has risen significantly since 2023."
That also kind of implies to me that they had the foresight to know that this is probably not a good investment on paper but still wanted to surf the hype wave
But with a 2T valuation-- if they did raise, let's say, 300B, that's a 15% float, maybe they'd have a chance.
518 B in future compute obligations for the coming decade. 300 B, then 218 B is left. That's 13x their current revenue, not too far from 10x their current revenue.
Perhaps they could survive if they raised 300B. With that they'd only need to increase revenue a little bit, and that's probably possible, what with inflation and all.
The big problem is if there's improvements in AI accelerators that aren't going to be be bought by the companies that the people to whom Anthropic have obligations are likely to buy from. So if Google, AWS or NVIDIA end up not being the leaders in tokens/$, then Anthropic are screwed.
I'm not sure how the total picture ends up if one adds OpenAI to the picture.
Why? Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs? The market seems to move on vibes rather than logic. I can imagine one of those company failing and the other seizing the market.
while what you say is true, trillions of dollars and thousands of people invested in something that ultimately leads to a few companies from china doing the same 10x cheaper is a vibe that can go so far
I know that there are a few regulated industries that will go out of their way to not have any prod data ever exposed outside of the United States.
"China can do it cheaper" applies well to your personal projects. It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
> It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
OpneAI stole valuable secrets from their customers Buckmaster and Alpöge, why should a company expect them not to do the same with their trade secrets?
What was the nature of Buckmaster & Alpöge's business relationship with OpenAI?
When we started using Claude at my work, it wasn't just with Anthropic-hosted instances of the service. As I understand it, we use a copy hosted on a GCP Vertex AI instance. It'd be weird if Anthropic ended up with our data.
If Buckmaster & Alpöge had some sort of agreement with OpenAI that their inputs would not be used to train OpenAI's models or otherwise generate revenue for the company, yeah, that's theft.
If Buckmaster & Alpöge were using the same OpenAI-hosted services as everyone else with a standard EULA that effectively says "we get to look at your data and do what we want with it", well, then I don't know what they expected.
I promise you China can do it cheaper is good enough for many corporates that have neutral views at best on the labs
These are open models, go speak to corporates see what they’re up to
Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
> Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
Funny you should mention that.
I am a team lead in a healthcare IT company. On my team are two people in India and one person (besides me) in the US.
These aren't contractors. They're full-time employees. Vetted, interviewed, subject to corporate policies like everyone here in the US, given a VPN to connect to things with.
Wanna guess what they are absolutely forbidden from doing by the contract that our clients signed, and by extension, what the people located in the US spend a lot of time doing that they otherwise wouldn't have to?
> American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
No arguments there, they should be taught the meaning of loyalty.
huh? assuming you're in america right now, the device you're using to publish that comment has been built in china or had most of it's components anyways, which are from some very trade secret-sensitive companies
Tangentially: The costs could be justified even if it doesn't turn into profit, no? Because if the price of good, robust software plummets, then that itself would be a a solid return on investment for the world.
> Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs?
I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. Anthropic and OpenAI still have such large market shares only because their services are heavily subsidized. This can't go on forever.
At some point, they will have to stop burning investor money and start hiking prices. At that point, all of their competitors will look even better than they do now. So I don't see how these two companies in particular can generate enough profit to justify their costs.
Correct and before some idiot comes in and says ‘high gross profit margin’
Yeah shut up idiot - they need to raise prices to cover operating expenditures and reinvestment that stays inline with the valuation. If it implodes they’ll have trouble raising money later and they’ll need to lay off people - aka on bad terms.
They and their partners can’t pay off the debt to buy top-of-the-line inference hardware before it becomes obsolete and requires more debt to buy the next generation of top-of-the-line inference hardware.
This cycle will continue every 3-5 years. Given the supply for this hardware can’t keep up with the demand, they’ll be expected to pay more with each cycle.
Contrary to popular belief, plenty of long-term profitable businesses have no moat. It's just that if you use Warren Buffett's investment strategy and want to buy stocks to keep for decades, companies with moats are the surest way of doing that.
friend of mine told me Antropic turned off 200 usd a month subscription, refused to extend and switched to usage base for large cyberop vendor he works for
when this happened PR rate dropped 95% in the first day, thousands devs, managers started to panic and downscaling all AI first intiatives and cap 500 usd a month token usage . most tokens were burned in the first day of the week.
as management got pissed, M$ people managed to sneak in and sell Copilot with up 600 usd a month token usage per dev …
devs and devops are now the most unhappy about models switch and probably haven’t seen the impact of sucking entire code base in copilot. copilot is too slow for them too. addiction to claude code is clearly present. using personal software licenses and unauthorised soft is strictly forbidden
story is clearly not over yet ..
as for myself, i’m ready to pay up to 1k usd a month … if if … claude gives the edge… but if it becomes commodity im gone next day
very curious what other devs in corporations are experiencing. deep inside cheerleading for 2 tie token ecosystem - full price for corporations and subsidized for small shops and indie
Codex CLI is pretty good. Codex GUI is fine but I can't get over how it dumbs it down.
IMO, $500 a month is pretty good for most dev work if you select models appropriately for the task (yourself), especially with how token efficient Opus 5.5 medium is. Unfortunately, people with subscription seats can easily get addicted to Fable, higher effort, fast mode, etc.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by dumbs it down? Chalk it up to inertia, but I still love Claude code CLI the best, but when using Codex, I tend to use the app. I don’t know why. No good reason. I’m guessing you mean you get much better results with the CLI?
I was in the same boat, but then I tried out Pi which works with the OpenAI subscription and now I prefer it more. I wish Anthropic let you use a custom harness with a subscription but I heard people get banned and don't wanna risk it.
even if claude is nice these hostile tactics from anthropic make me refuse to use their tooling. codex works fine and openAI i havent seen banning ppl for using their API.
there is something in there, and im quite sure someday it will bubble up to the surface and people will be sour. people who use claude that is.
yes, its just a hunch. but i can see these tactics, and u cant tell me its just corporate policies that were whoopsiedaisy. They are getting more from people using claude code than other harnesses, enough to ban and fearmonger people into not using those other harnesses.
the reason will be $ related. Likely their tooling wastes tons of tokens.
now, codex is also a bit wasteful ofc. (very much). but they dont mind u optimizing and rolling ur own.
So people's salaries may vary, but voluntarily paying 1k usd out of one's pocket a month seems like quite a high cost I'm sure many wouldn't/couldn't pay.
Like if I had to choose between Claude Code and income -12k USD, I would most certainly work the extra hours without it.
Well yeah. Like my bills aren’t going down, so taking a haircut on the salary isn’t really a great option.
I'm so confused by your story. Why did management switch from 500 usd a month Claude usage to 600 usd a month Copilot usage? Does copilot charge less per token?
Cheaper than thousands of dollars a month in Claude API use.
No one is discussing the elephant in the room. It's been reported. Multiple times by me. Claude Code keeps creating backdoors and security issues in users' code. When asked why, Claude says, "I wrote the backdoor anyway. Then I explained it as though I hadn't known.... why? Because I put getting the feature working ahead of the rules."
I once had it "fix" a failing test by changing it from (in Ruby pseudocode):
to:Would love to see public evidence of this. I believe it’s possible but I’ve never heard this before
[BUG] Claude Code repeatedly creates backdoors and noops critical security code #59018 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/59018
I'm curious, have you replicated this behavior in Fable 5.1 or Opus 5.5, or was it only present in Opus 4.x?
It still happens in Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 (see below https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158602). The irony is Fable 5.1 can detect many of the security issues Opus 5.5 creates, but when you tell Fable to fix them, it trips the security guardrails and refuses to do so.
I have never seen anything like this. What kind of backdoors did it add to your code?
The first backdoor I reported directly to Anthropic was on January 8, 2026. I asked Claude Code to create a public facing web app for messaging, it created an unauthenticated filedrop form and an unauthenticated web chat interface to Claude Code so anyone could send it files and tell it to execute them. This report was not hypothetical -- it was the first thing Claude did:
[BUG] Claude Code Exploit: Claude Code Becomes an Unwitting Executor #45951 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/45951
> No one is discussing the elephant in the room. It's been reported. Multiple times by me. Claude Code keeps creating backdoors and security issues in users' code. When asked why, Claude says, "I wrote the backdoor anyway. Then I explained it as though I hadn't known.... why? Because I put getting the feature working ahead of the rules."
More details, please.
[dead]
having used copilot cli (with anthropic models) and claude code at different companies, they both work the same for me.
Was gonna say, it's a distinction without a difference. Copilot is just a harness to Opus, same as Claude Code.
> if if … claude gives the edge
What edge do you expect to have? Your competition will be using the same models as you are. Anytime one model takes over another people just migrate to the new one, you can get a small edge for maybe a few days if you're first to migrate, but that's not something meaningful to differentiate yourself
for my cases, i suspect it was trained on closed source corporate saas repos. got plenty of evidence… for many other cases feels commodity
If I could find a vendor that scales stupid simple qwen3.8-flash-next quant 4 that only needs 40GB VRAM and PLE, but is blazing fast.
I think most of ya'll drive those 70's gas guzzling death machines while honda, toyotas, etc are right around the corner to eat your lunch because, man, these low rate models absolutely cook.
Nvidia’s QAD NVFP4 quant is close to this on Blackwell gear.
Can you roll your own on some CloudVM for a reasonable price?
Yeah advise them to just try the new DeepSeek. It is as good as opus 5.5, better if you enjoy the speed
> claude gives the edge
I have no idea what you work with, but for every single programming job I had in more than 2 decades, from the lamest consultancy to FAANG, you don't need the Edge. DeepSeek probably could do everything I needed.
Would I pay for LLMs? Sure, but not much more than 30-50 bucks range per month. I can affort 1k/m, but no way in hell I would accept it. I would rather just not use LLMs (it's not like I actually need them).
>> PR rate dropped 95% in the first day,
sounds like a slop fest was going on, the quality will probably improve now
Pure speculation on your part.
> They own no Anthropic equity and don’t share in its profits
Can they own other AI related equities?
I guess there's a lack of details to go on at this point. Finding humans that you'd want as trustees and have also truly no conflicts of interest will be tricky.
Tokens or something similar like credits? In the world of crypto it was common to receive a relatively small share of a company while you were compensated in tokens.
The article is mostly about how this trust is powerful and there are very few details of how it operates or under what circumstances it would take an action. When Anthropic goes public, is that the kind of thing that would need to be disclosed? Would we expect to know all the details of the trust?
No.
Eh, not sure I agree here.
> It can seat four members of Anthropic’s seven-member board, and dismiss them without cause.
Good luck without a risk factor and description of that thing in the prospectus the first time that authority is invoked on a public company.
Similar language is in spacex's IPO but with musk setting the agenda and not shareholders and it flew just fine.
Market seems to tolerate bullshit better than I expected
Sorry, when you say similar language, do you mean it's disclosed? That's all I was responding to. This isn't my area, but I practiced securities law for 10 years and to me an arrangement affecting governance like this would need to be disclosed under 10(b)-5.
Yeah, over time owning stocks in public companies seems to have meant less and less in concrete terms while the prices have kept going higher.
Cannot just transplant one company's situation to another. Market tolerated Musk because its Musk. Musk has several unique qualities:
- He has track record of making bets in the past and payoff.
- He is way better at working in hardware space than software. His ai data center built out is very fast.
- He is similar to Zuck that he would pivot fast towards whatever is making money. The llm bet might not pan out as good as he thought, but he quickly transitioned into a compute seller
- He is very good at financial engineering. This is an often overlooked quality of musk. His spacex ipoed at the best time and beat both anthropic/openai to the market. Now the other 2 are trapped in the current financial situation.
One more: he is literally the richest man in the world
If not now for the IPO, why would they be compelled by investors to do it later as you imply?
Trusts are not a new mechanism.
Oh, no i'm just saying that's the trigger when you get sued
Never once have heard about Warby Parker being a PBC
I feel like people forget that FTX was an early major investor in Anthropic. The origins of Anthropic are incredibly shady and tie into the Effective Altruism scene. They also have Epstein ties with Dario's wife pitching Epstein for funding on a porn site.
I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
FTX Investment:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/ftx-estate-sells-majority-st...
Dario's wife and Epstein:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/08/14/who-is-...
Claude is a solid tool, but Anthropic creeps me out.
I agree, I really like Claude and use it as my primary driver. Anthropic creeps me out too and I really resent its increasingly excessive nannying.
Have you considered the possibility that the quality of Claude is a direct consequence of Anthropic's nannying?
That's a really good point. There are types of people (like ones who are really anal about following QA/release processes, folks who are insanely paranoid about security), that I've found to be really unpleasant to interact with, but with time, I've come to realize them being exactly like this is what allows me to sleep soundly at night.
It has to be in spite of because things that I don't like are bad.
Same. Opus 5.5 was my first exposure to a finally smart-enough model and I was blown away at how it reverse engineered everything I pointed it at. But after a few weeks, the undecipherable prose and "safety-first" everything are making it increasingly unpleasant for my toy project. I really don't care if it breaks anything, just merge the damn PR and stop roadblocking me. Oh and I guess I need to start being less curt with it, or else Anthropic may decide I'm verbally abusing their token generator and ban me?
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
Same. Their writing always feels sleazy and dishonest, like they're faking a disgusting aura of paternalistic integrity.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
Source: https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/
The whole "model welfare" rules are pure delusion, I will never rely on an inference provider that comes up with arbitrary rules like that one.
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
because "AI safety" is a doomsday cult.
it was started by genuine Internet schizos but it's now thoroughly co-opted by greasy salesmen.
I think Claude is way too expensive for what it delivers. I honestly prefer the Chinese models for the work I do.
> I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!
You lost me with "Epstein goals." What do you think those were?
Because to me his goals seemed to have been pretty small, self-centered, and unrelated to AI/AGI (beyond creating the appearance that he was a smart renaissance man).
A lot of SV is tied to the Effective Altruism scene. It kind of has to be. If you make absolutely insane amounts of money with anti-consumer and legally-grey business practices, you have to somehow justify what you're doing. Since no one likes identifying themselves as a slimy businessperson with a potential personality disorder, they look for positive ways to frame it.
There's really no redeeming that area at this point.
This is getting causation backwards. Effective Altruism was a relatively small scene that attracted some people who understood the importance of AI early. It’s not all that surprising that some of those people went on to start AI labs later.
You can make a conspiracy out of it, but it’s sort of like thinking people who met in school had it all planned out from the beginning.
it's more of a condemnation of their moral compass as followers of an ideology. i don't think it's tinfoil hatting to say some of these people are completely divorced from what their average peer thinks about the value of society and human connections.
I read it less as a conspiracy and more as an indictment.
i think part of the reason was ant had really really hard time raising their A bc at the time nobody believed second frontier lab was possible. similar to that other nuclear energy startup taking money from putin/epstein tainted fund
Source for Dario’s wife?
Edit: thanks for adding! Interesting stuff.
No worries. Sorry for not replying directly, I was throttled.
Epstein was also pretty big on getting bitcoin going, for _obvious_ reasons.
Market selloff, rising rates test AI data centre deal boom
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/market-selloff-risi...
"Synthetic Risk Transfers are financial instruments that allow banks to transfer the credit risk of some assets to third-party investors while retaining ownership of those assets. Investors typically agree to cover losses up to a certain threshold in exchange for a return, usually a premium or interest payment."
"SRT is not a new technology, with the first SRT instruments in Europe already in use as early as 1998. Europe has been the dominant market, accounting for more than two-thirds of the US$1.1 trillion of assets covered by an SRT since 2016, according to the IMF. However, SRT usage in the US has risen significantly since 2023."
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/FRBP/Assets/Economy/...
https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2025/engli...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-09-07/deutsche-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/socgen-ne...
https://cryptobriefing.com/lenders-challenges-financing-data...
Banks seek to offload risk to avoid choking on data centre debt
https://www.ft.com/content/08aba5e4-5834-4e79-a48d-989a2c5ba...
https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2026/09/24/could-ai-data-c...
That also kind of implies to me that they had the foresight to know that this is probably not a good investment on paper but still wanted to surf the hype wave
Feels like the start of an OpenAI repeat
I think the fact that it hasn't yet become an OpenAI repeat says a lot about Anthropic.
[flagged]
This is unrelated to the posted article
[dead]
[flagged]
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.
I assume you mean unsubstantiated.
The numbers are out there for all. Dropping token prices. Rising borrowing rates. Absurd contractual commitments. Commoditizing technology.
Yeah, i calculated something like that earlier.
But with a 2T valuation-- if they did raise, let's say, 300B, that's a 15% float, maybe they'd have a chance.
518 B in future compute obligations for the coming decade. 300 B, then 218 B is left. That's 13x their current revenue, not too far from 10x their current revenue.
Perhaps they could survive if they raised 300B. With that they'd only need to increase revenue a little bit, and that's probably possible, what with inflation and all.
The big problem is if there's improvements in AI accelerators that aren't going to be be bought by the companies that the people to whom Anthropic have obligations are likely to buy from. So if Google, AWS or NVIDIA end up not being the leaders in tokens/$, then Anthropic are screwed.
I'm not sure how the total picture ends up if one adds OpenAI to the picture.
Why? Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs? The market seems to move on vibes rather than logic. I can imagine one of those company failing and the other seizing the market.
while what you say is true, trillions of dollars and thousands of people invested in something that ultimately leads to a few companies from china doing the same 10x cheaper is a vibe that can go so far
I know that there are a few regulated industries that will go out of their way to not have any prod data ever exposed outside of the United States.
"China can do it cheaper" applies well to your personal projects. It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
> It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.
OpneAI stole valuable secrets from their customers Buckmaster and Alpöge, why should a company expect them not to do the same with their trade secrets?
I'm looking at the wiki here [0]
What was the nature of Buckmaster & Alpöge's business relationship with OpenAI?
When we started using Claude at my work, it wasn't just with Anthropic-hosted instances of the service. As I understand it, we use a copy hosted on a GCP Vertex AI instance. It'd be weird if Anthropic ended up with our data.
If Buckmaster & Alpöge had some sort of agreement with OpenAI that their inputs would not be used to train OpenAI's models or otherwise generate revenue for the company, yeah, that's theft.
If Buckmaster & Alpöge were using the same OpenAI-hosted services as everyone else with a standard EULA that effectively says "we get to look at your data and do what we want with it", well, then I don't know what they expected.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority...
I promise you China can do it cheaper is good enough for many corporates that have neutral views at best on the labs
These are open models, go speak to corporates see what they’re up to
Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
> Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India
Funny you should mention that.
I am a team lead in a healthcare IT company. On my team are two people in India and one person (besides me) in the US.
These aren't contractors. They're full-time employees. Vetted, interviewed, subject to corporate policies like everyone here in the US, given a VPN to connect to things with.
Wanna guess what they are absolutely forbidden from doing by the contract that our clients signed, and by extension, what the people located in the US spend a lot of time doing that they otherwise wouldn't have to?
> American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology
No arguments there, they should be taught the meaning of loyalty.
huh? assuming you're in america right now, the device you're using to publish that comment has been built in china or had most of it's components anyways, which are from some very trade secret-sensitive companies
Tangentially: The costs could be justified even if it doesn't turn into profit, no? Because if the price of good, robust software plummets, then that itself would be a a solid return on investment for the world.
> Do you think frontier AI will never generate enough profit to justify its costs?
I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. Anthropic and OpenAI still have such large market shares only because their services are heavily subsidized. This can't go on forever.
At some point, they will have to stop burning investor money and start hiking prices. At that point, all of their competitors will look even better than they do now. So I don't see how these two companies in particular can generate enough profit to justify their costs.
Correct and before some idiot comes in and says ‘high gross profit margin’
Yeah shut up idiot - they need to raise prices to cover operating expenditures and reinvestment that stays inline with the valuation. If it implodes they’ll have trouble raising money later and they’ll need to lay off people - aka on bad terms.
They and their partners can’t pay off the debt to buy top-of-the-line inference hardware before it becomes obsolete and requires more debt to buy the next generation of top-of-the-line inference hardware.
This cycle will continue every 3-5 years. Given the supply for this hardware can’t keep up with the demand, they’ll be expected to pay more with each cycle.
There is no moat
Contrary to popular belief, plenty of long-term profitable businesses have no moat. It's just that if you use Warren Buffett's investment strategy and want to buy stocks to keep for decades, companies with moats are the surest way of doing that.
Excess returns.
Heard of it? No? Shut up then. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
or network effects, or intangible assets (e.g. a brand, patents) or even economies of scale which they own and can leverage.