Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation

211

mmeetpateltech about 5 hours ago 185 commentsRead Article on anthropic.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

79% Positive

Analyzed from 3660 words in the discussion.

Discussion (185 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

simonw•about 2 hours ago

> Since our Series G in February, adoption has continued to grow across global enterprise customers, and our run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month.

OK, so their self-reported run-rate revenue hit $47bn in early May.

For comparison:

Apr 6th 2026: https://www.anthropic.com/news/google-broadcom-partnership-c... - "Demand from Claude customers has accelerated in 2026. Our run-rate revenue has now surpassed $30 billion—up from approximately $9 billion at the end of 2025."

So that's $30bn at the start of April.

Feb 12th 2026: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-30-billion-s... - "Today, our run-rate revenue is $14 billion, with this figure growing over 10x annually in each of those past three years."

That was $14bn on Feb 12th.

And $9bn in December (according to the above April 6th link.)

mgfist•41 minutes ago

Pretty unfathomable growth. I'm pretty sure I listened to Dario saying something along the lines of keeping Anthropic on track for 10x ARR growth (in December) and thinking that that was a bonkers idea for a $9B run-rate company, and now it's looking like that might be an underestimate ...

cyanydeez•26 minutes ago

irresponsible growth

tailscaler2026•18 minutes ago

not really. just a capacity planning issue on that side. much harder challenge is continuing to train better models.

ratakh•24 minutes ago

According to estimates, there are 4.4 million software engineers in the US. Let's assume generously 10 million in the West in total.

Then everyone of these would need to spend $400 per month on tokens.

I don't know how much killing girls in Minab pays, but it looks like there is a lot of fake revenue reported here.

simonw•4 minutes ago

I spent $200/month on subscriptions last month ($100 each to Anthropic and OpenAI) and the API cost version of my token spend was $2,100 - and if I'd been on the "Enterprise" plans my company would have had to pay the full price, not the subscription discount: https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/27/product-market-fit/#en...

I agree that $400/month is a HUGE amount, but there might be a path to that.

conception•9 minutes ago

400/mo is about what we are seeing a full time dev use on average, coincidentally.

SOLAR_FIELDS•4 minutes ago

Indeed if I look at the usage of my cohorts the power users typically spend almost exactly this much

Game_Ender•14 minutes ago

It’s becoming like the iPhone, once the software has access to “Claude”, everyone in the org wants it. Finance wants it for excel, marketing and design for image generation, compliance for working with documents. Sure it’s not software engineering rates, but it increases the user base beyond software developers.

HDBaseT•7 minutes ago

Tangential, but I'm partially surprised Anthropic hasn't released an image model, even something basic to complement their offering.

waterTanuki•4 minutes ago

You're not factoring in enterprise contracts which will probably be more per dev per month

himata4113•11 minutes ago

that;s basically nothing, companies are spending upwards of $4,000 to $30,000 PER employee. Is it worth that much? probably not.

zarzavat•2 minutes ago

Is that truly a recurring expense though or just the cost of doing things now? It remains to be seen whether any of this is sustainable.

photonair•10 minutes ago

If these are fake revenues, I would think that the sophisticated investors would see through that? Or everyone is just in some ponzi scheme raising valuation and letting the last investors hold the bag or eventually pass it on to retail investors buying at the peak?

pertymcpert•10 minutes ago

$400 a month is a lot to you?

reactordev•44 minutes ago

Shhh, you’ll make the numbers not make sense…

eutropia•about 2 hours ago

What is run-rate revenue and how is it different than revenue (classic)?

topherPedersen•about 4 hours ago

Anthropic has a great product, but what's going on in the stock market is astonishing. Companies waiting to be valued at a trillion dollars before going public? (I'm writing this comment with the assumption that they will go public soon and the valuation will be higher than this $965 billion dollar private valuation) The stock market used to be a place for companies to raise money from investors. But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground. Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left. There is no growth or upside left by the time these companies go public. If you invest in these IPOs you are buying the absolute peak with all potential future profits baked into the price, with nowhere left to go but down.

taude•about 4 hours ago

Yeup, no shortage of tech IPOs over the past five years that are now valued at like 5% of what they were after being dumped onto the market: ZoomInfo, Bumble, Gemini

And many more that are 50% of what they were: Snowflake, Coinbase

And many more that went back to private companies and then were sold off: Carbon Black, etc...

I'm actually too lazy to go list out all of them.

But employees, beware, of those gnarly lockup periods post IPO where all the better classed options than yours get to exit.

pas•about 2 hours ago

... still, "on average" IPOs tend to make money, no? that's why people (fight to be able) to buy them.

this gives a nice comfy exit to many late-stage investors, etc.

and, of course, it's hard to say that it's great that these companies are mere shadows of themselves post-IPO, but also it's impossible to non-misleadingly assess each IPO as if they were in a vacuum.

obviously Coinbase is/was a stupid venture, but at the same time it was a pretty good bet at the time. and the same stands for a lot of these.

w10-1•about 2 hours ago

Often only minimal shares are floated on the public market - 5-10% now is not unusual. Also, founders keep priority shares to keep the company.

So IPO is not particularly a liquidity event for investors as much as a valuation/pricing event. Indeed, the tech IPO's that have done the worst were the ones where shareholders wanted liquidity.

Clearly none of the multi-trillion dollar companies could find a buyer now if they really needed to sell themselves, so they're not really "worth" that much. (Nor are their founders, who can't sell their shares without tanking the stock.)

So these stocks are more like derivatives: a way to bet on the future where betting volume is huge relative to the underlying asset.

onlyrealcuzzo•about 4 hours ago

> But that isn't what it is anymore, it's a dumping ground.

We got "dumped" Google and Facebook, so... Those probably made up for all the other "dumps".

We also got "dumped" TSLA, which is meme-ing in the trillions at the moment.

You can short Anthropic at IPO if you want...

halamadrid•about 3 hours ago

Looking back it feels like GOOG, FB, TSLA etc. all went IPO at reasonable valuations. Retail & public investors did benefit long term and continuing to get higher valuations in public is not a small feat compared to a VC valuation.

A trillion dollar valuation seemed so hard back in the day and now there are so many companies in that list. What's the next level?

Is this just signs that $ is no longer the inflating at the same rate over time and its the realistic inflation that is reflecting in the stock market?

Prices of all goods surely has to follow to make up for the revenue needed to sustain these valuations and also the salaries to sustain the prices.

Unfortunately, those who are not in the loop is not going to have a good time.

senko•36 minutes ago

> Looking back it feels like GOOG, FB, TSLA etc. all went IPO at reasonable valuations

Yeah, looking back. At the time, I distinctly remember people were going batshit over the insane FB valuation. It wasn't at all obvious it was justified.

Hindsight is 20/20.

ml_basics•about 1 hour ago

maybe we will look back and also think that the current slate of IPOs were reasonable valuations?

NewJazz•about 4 hours ago

Google IPO 20 years ago, Tesla 15 years ago, facebook almost 15 years ago.

Situations change.

onlyrealcuzzo•about 3 hours ago

When did they change? 3 years and 4 months ago? 1 year ago? 8 years?

Because when Facebook IPO'd everyone was saying the stock market was a dumping ground...

Same with Google...

Same with Pets.com and WebVan...

signatoremo•about 3 hours ago

Maybe but can you elaborate what the changes are?

surgical_fire•about 3 hours ago

Or he can just steer clear of the eventual Anthropic stock. Shorting is not the only strategy available to avoid losing money.

But you, of course, can buy on their IPO. They need every bagholder they can get :)

qeternity•about 4 hours ago

> Venture capitalists & private investors are sucking all of the possible growth and future upside from these companies and then dumping them on retail investors when there's nothing left.

A lot of the money that is deployed by VCs comes from pension funds and asset managers that ultimately manage money for the average Joe.

andriy_koval•about 3 hours ago

Is there any evidence of what is the share/volume of such assets involved?

surgical_fire•about 3 hours ago

If they could have gone public, they probably would have. I hope they do, their S1 might be good meme material.

Companies that reached a level of maturity where going public make sense don't keep doing funding rounds to cover the rate at which they bleed money.

cmiles8•about 5 hours ago

Probably the bigger headline here is that they’ve blown past OpenAI in revenue and valuation, with OpenAI looking increasingly shaky and vulnerable.

Aurornis•about 4 hours ago

Their valuations differ by about 13%. That's close enough that I wouldn't call it "blown past".

Things change fast in this space. Anthropic had a big boost from having the premier coding model for a while, but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.

Anthropic is coming off of a recent change to their enterprise billing that substantially changed the pricing for many users. They were smart to do the fundraising before the effects of that change could fully propagate.

cmiles8•about 4 hours ago

The acceleration rate has been extraordinary… they went from mostly unknown outside AI circles to the number one player almost overnight. If that’s not “blown past” I don’t know what is.

jmathai•about 4 hours ago

The branding of Claude is so much stronger than ChatGPT. Even Anthropic is such better branding than OpenAI (especially considering they're not open at all).

My wife knows about Claude because that's what I use and we pay for. She uses it also as a result. And inevitably she will talk about Claude to her friends.

pavlov•about 3 hours ago

I remember seeing expensive multi-page ads for Claude in the New Yorker over a year ago.

Their marketing has been working the high end of the “regular people” market for a good while.

baal80spam•about 4 hours ago

Do ordinary people really know what Anthropic is?

manquer•about 3 hours ago

> but GPT-5.5 has closed that gap at a time when a lot of Anthropic customers are looking for cheaper alternatives.

GPT-5.5 is a bit more expensive than Opus ? Current list prices

  | Model      | Input   | Output   |
  | GPT-5.5    | $5/MTok | $30/MTok |
  | Opus 4.8/7 | $5/MTok | $25/MTok |

Deepseek perhaps would be the top threat on a pure price/performance metric for either of them. It doesn't look like OAI is going for the value play .

gruez•about 3 hours ago

Comparing $/MTokfor models makes as much sense as comparing $/ghz for CPUs. Models have different tokenizers and take varying number of "thinking" to get to a solution. A far better proxy is how much it takes to do a run, which takes all of that into account. Such metrics are much harder to gather, but once source claims $3357 for gpt-5.5 vs $4686 for opus, the opposite of your conclusion.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost

Spartan-S63•about 3 hours ago

Most variants of GPT-5.5 are less chatty and token-intensive than Opus 4.8/4.7, so despite the output token price being higher, it generates fewer tokens, so the net cost is lower.

Per-token pricing is totally sensible from the provider-perspective on mapping COGS to revenue, but for a consumer, different models will produce more or less tokens, meaning the cost calculation is multi-dimensional.

alecco•about 4 hours ago

Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts. AFAIK OpenAI will soon run mostly on on their own GPUs.

I don't like Altman and I am still upset about his memory deal last year but he prepared for the current shortages months before anybody else. Meanwhile, Anthropic seems to lack any plans besides third party contracting. IMHO they got very lucky with xAI and Google having spare capacity and willing to rent it. But what about next year?

lumost•about 4 hours ago

Which also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to NVidia's aggressive pricing. To my knowledge Anthropic is relatively well positioned across multiple compute vendors/hardware providers.

abirch•about 4 hours ago

It also leaves OpenAI vulnerable to any GPU breakthroughs. You could imagine company X comes up with a XPU that is 100% faster than what's currently there.*

* NVidia GPU, Google TPU, Apple SoC, etc.

manquer•about 3 hours ago

> their own GPUs

Everyone has critical risk on multiple parts of the supply chain. GPUs and Memory are just things OAI mitigated for.

Power - Bigger bottleneck than GPU or RAM perhaps, New Grid connected capacity is typically 10+ year timescale with lot of regulatory friction. Captive capacity is also quite constrained - now Gas turbines have 7+ year wait time.

There are plenty of hard constraints that OAI cannot easily solve either.

outside1234•about 2 hours ago

Don't worry, they will buy up OpenAI's contracts once they implode.

dopa42365•about 4 hours ago

The same 3rd party datacenters from the same few companies that everything else runs on? If there's demand, hyperscalers will supply.

thereitgoes456•about 4 hours ago

Stargate is not real.

It is not clear that running one's own datacenter is a competitive advantage. Why do you think OpenAI can handle that?

Gomotono•about 4 hours ago

Stargate as a project is real, they only stoped the Stargate UK thing.

Anthropics relativ longterm contract with xAI def shows that they can fill the capacity vs Musk not. OpenAI and Anthropic are both using a lot of capacity so its fair to say that this is an advantage.

If they stay very close competitive (which they are), your own datacenter does reduce token price.

llm_nerd•about 3 hours ago

>Anthropic is at the mercy of 3rd party datacenter contracts

I mean, this is a bit like complaining that McDonalds doesn't have their own herds of cows. OpenAI actually isn't in the business of buying GPUs or running data centres, and it's pretty weird to think that's an advantage (though it comes up constantly on here, as Anthropic keeps eating OpenAI's lunch).

There are many suppliers that are desperate to fight for Anthropics business, and it has shown an agility to embrace whatever advances in the industry come along. Anthropic is now running across a million or so Google TPUv8s, for instance. If tomorrow someone else comes out with a better GPU/TPU, they can embrace it in a heartbeat.

All while OpenAI sits on their rapidly depreciating GPUs.

Or...actually they won't, because OpenAI doesn't take business advice from HN. The vast majority of OpenAI's compute is from Microsoft, Oracle and so on. They're smart enough to not become a big hardware purchaser when that isn't their business. The core claim of your comment simply isn't true at all, nor is that the direction OpenAI is moving.

bombcar•44 minutes ago

To be fair apparently a big part of McDonald’s success is having their own real estate.

CuriouslyC•about 3 hours ago

Anthropic is riding a hype wave as a result of brilliant marketing. OpenAI has the better products, higher reliability and better community relations. I don't expect the situation to continue.

kromokromo•about 2 hours ago

I disagree. They have been winning lately because of better harnesses and interfaces. New actual decent features are shipped almost weekly on Claude code and Claude desktop.

outside1234•about 2 hours ago

OpenAI has a broken business model

hereme888•about 3 hours ago

I agree

karmasimida•about 3 hours ago

OpenAI isn't shaky or vulnerable, this market will need at least 2 players.

I see most of the surge here comes FOMO AI spending which will have to be dialed down later half of the year, otherwise those companies will have to layoff to fund their AI bill, which is harmful to their business.

Anthropic grabs its bag at the peak, but feast is over.

dyauspitr•about 3 hours ago

Having used Codex though I don’t think OpenAI needs to worry. It’s a solid product and they will share the market.

outside1234•about 2 hours ago

Anthropic is the Google to OpenAI's Yahoo.

andy_ppp•about 4 hours ago

I wonder if being consistently candid is a superior business strategy?

wslh•about 4 hours ago

This business and financial race is probably the craziest in human history, so zig-zags are expected. One company may take advantage on one curve while another is stuck in the pits.

ignoramous•about 5 hours ago

How? OpenAI and Antrophic are basically the Big 2 racing away at light speed; the others who can't get near them are perhaps shaky & vulnerable. And sure, there's a garden full of those.

cmiles8•about 4 hours ago

Because the market almost certainly can’t support two foundation model labs given the increasingly little difference across models and the massive sums of cash required to keep it all going. There is no big 2, just a race to survive and be the big 1.

treis•about 3 hours ago

There's at least two markets here. Consumer ad driven and worker augmentation markets. Likely a 3rd as a backend infrastructure provider to a bunch of value add companies.

I think Google has caught up enough to certainly be a player in the consumer ad driven market.

I also don't think only one foundation model adds up. Now that the trail is blazed a dozen companies can likely make a good enough model. The question is if there's a moat to make it winner take all

dchftcs•about 4 hours ago

China will make sure they have a frontier lab, there's plenty of chance for Google to catch up once the compute crunch gets more serious.

solenoid0937•about 4 hours ago

Disagree, both are coexisting fine today.

an0malous•about 4 hours ago

It probably can't support any because there's no moat and smaller, open source models are catching up. This is like investing $1T into mainframe computers in 1980.

dotcoma•about 3 hours ago

isn't Google going to win the race anyway ?

watwut•about 4 hours ago

If it cant support two competing compamies, something is very wrong. Oligopoly is bad, monopoly worst.

Well functioning market is supposed to have many, as in a lot, companies with similar products. To create competition.

andriy_koval•about 4 hours ago

Google likely has its market share too, you can track how fast Cloud revenue increased.

decimalenough•about 3 hours ago

It's a gold rush and Google is both selling shovels and digging for gold itself.

fontain•about 5 hours ago

I’m not so sure. We only need to look at Uber’s example of companies realizing they’re spending way too much and trying to rein it in. Claude has excellent revenue but it is highly dependent on very rich technology companies continuing to spend lavishly without seeing returns. The music will stop at some point and Anthropic will be hit the hardest. OpenAI may have less revenue but it is distributed across many, many more customers and use cases, it’s resilient. And even if Anthropic do, somehow, manage to keep their customers spending huge amounts on Claude, they’re very vulnerable to being undercut by OpenAI given codex is pretty much at parity. Anthropic seems more vulnerable to me.

Archonical•about 5 hours ago

I think it's somewhat guaranteed that the music will at least die down a little bit. We saw this with cloud companies being bitten by cloud cost optimization initiatives. I can't imagine we won't see the same with AI, especially as the workforce stops trying to tokenmaxx to save their role.

Gomotono•about 4 hours ago

If you look at the adoption curve of Claude, I don't think we have reached anything near peak.

Analemma_•about 5 hours ago

Every week there's at least one post on the HN front page bitching about API errors from Claude because Anthropic doesn't have enough serving capacity. I really don't see any signs they're "spending too much", the actual evidence on the ground seems to be exactly the opposite: constant exasperation that they're not spending enough.

CuriouslyC•about 3 hours ago

Unlike OpenAI, a lot of Claude's infra problems are self-inflicted and not completely raw-capacity related.

newaccountman2•about 4 hours ago

What he means is the customers realizing they are spending too much on Anthropic.

fontain•about 4 hours ago

I mean Anthropic’s customers are spending too much on Claude. Anthropic’s customers are encouraging tokenmaxxing amongst their employees; measuring employees by token usage. That’s great for Anthropic’s short term revenue numbers but terrible long term because at some point companies will realize tokenmaxxing is not good. OpenAI is much less exposed to tokenmaxxing, which is a good thing.

henry2023•about 4 hours ago

“Caballo que alcanza, gana”

iooi•about 5 hours ago

So close to being the first kilocorn. A unicorn = 1 billion, this is almost 1k.

someperson•about 4 hours ago

Hasn't SpaceX achieved that though?

And Saudi Aramco before they IPO'd

Jblx2•about 4 hours ago

Kibicorn has a nicer ring to it ($1,024 billion).

wg0•about 2 hours ago

That you all have to pay of course. With interest. Directly or indirectly. Through subscriptions or through pension funds and such.

GenerWork•about 5 hours ago

As someone who knows admittedly knows nothing about startup funding rounds, how many more rounds of funding can they do before an IPO? Is it effectively infinite?

tomwheeler•about 5 hours ago

Effectively infinite. Databricks is a good example. They're still private after 13 years and closed a Series L round last year. Stripe is similar.

Having been through an IPO before, it was good for employee liquidity, but bad for the culture and long-term success of the company.

charlie0•about 5 hours ago

Dead capital. There's no need for public funding until they are reasy to cash out at the top, if ever.

solenoid0937•about 4 hours ago

How do investors cash out? Do they sell to new round investors?

misiti3780•about 5 hours ago

so how do stripe employees get liquidity? can anyone sell their secondary shares?

tomwheeler•about 5 hours ago

I can't speak for the specific case of Stripe, but it's fairly common for private companies to have a "tender offer" in which employees have the opportunity to sell some portion of their equity. This is often done in conjunction with a new investment round.

Scoundreller•about 3 hours ago

Bankruptcy court?

FTX bought 8% of Anthropic for $500m in 2021.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/03/18/ftx-owne...

toomuchtodo•about 5 hours ago

Tender offers.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tender_offer

https://carta.com/learn/equity/liquidity-events/tender-offer...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

(secondary markets are sometimes an option, depending on stock transfer restrictions)

newaccountman2•about 4 hours ago

Private/secondary markets.

jiveturkey•about 3 hours ago

There's a newish term for this: RLO, Recurring Liquidity Opportunity. These are tender offers at some recurring interval. Even some companies that have a shorter lifespan (say 7 years) offer this.

vanuatu•about 3 hours ago

regular tender offers

clint•about 5 hours ago

Stripe might buy back the shares at a good price. They might be able to sell on secondary markets.

dkdcdev•about 5 hours ago

I believe the canonical example is Databricks on round L

nerdsniper•about 5 hours ago

I believe Databricks series L round raised $4B in late 2025, but earlier this year they raised another $5B so technically they've maybe completed series M round and are "on" series N round now? The press releases are a bit confusing to me.

tomwheeler•about 5 hours ago

It's semantics, but the latest raise might have been a follow-on to Series M, not a new round (to be clear, I know nothing about their finances, just speaking from experience at another company).

jmathai•about 5 hours ago

I imagine there are ways for existing investors to achieve liquidity while still raising venture funding. But an IPO is "the" liquidity event and I imagine there will be pressure from investors for that.

I also imagine that venture funding rounds have a lower ceiling than the public markets - but at these rounds I'm not so sure!

toasty228•about 3 hours ago

Once they reach series Z does it go back to A or do we get a new format like AA, AB ?

Npovview•about 3 hours ago

We live in Unicode times. We switch to Greek alphabets.

α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω

tomwheeler•about 3 hours ago

After those are used up, it moves to Devanagari, Hangul, Katakana, Hiragana, and then Kanji.

ielillo•about 5 hours ago

usually you would go through seed funding, the series a,b, and possibly a1 and b1. If you entered c or d territory it meant that you still had a chance but vc would be following you very closely. After d, you could raise money, but it would be under very unfavorable conditions

vidarh•about 3 hours ago

The number of rounds is irrelevant. Having crunched the data, what is relevant to terms is simply as you'd expect the rate of growth. The only reason it rarely happens with fast growing companies is that the liquidity of an IPO is attractive. As a result, companies doing many rounds are disproportionately companies that are performing too poorly to try and IPO.

rvz•about 5 hours ago

Depends on the investors if they see growth. The downside is dilution. Preferably they just want the Series I as the IPO in this case.

They cannot raise forever, SpaceX has done more rounds but the timing is most important.

re-thc•about 5 hours ago

Yes, whatever you like

wina•about 5 hours ago

they can do as many as they want. but at some point investors need/want to exit their positions and push for an IPO. That point is different for every company.

mettamage•about 3 hours ago

I wish I could invest into it, I'd at the very least have invested in their Series F. It was a no brainer by that point. If anyone could teach me how to get into stuff like this, that'd be awesome. I'm from the Netherlands, so not American. Though I'm married to an American.

outside1234•about 2 hours ago

Don't worry, it will be all dumped on the SP 500 as soon as it is at its hype peak.

jameson•about 2 hours ago

Does this mean no IPO this year? What are the likely chances a company at this stage needs two rounds of funding within a year?

8f2ab37a-ed6c•about 4 hours ago

Say you join Anthropic now as an employee. What are the chances of your equity appreciating in value? I don't think we have any historical precedents to this.

bix6•about 4 hours ago

Well presumably nobody investing in this current round expects anything less than a 3x

hiddencost•about 4 hours ago

inflation

I suspect we'll have our first $10T company in the next 2-3 years. That's only doubling.

bix6•about 4 hours ago

This is all getting a bit tiring. Show us the S1 already!

mutator•about 4 hours ago

This did round involve a secondary? If yes, any data to suggest that these secondaries are leading to increased spending outside of housing and propping up the local economy?

jiveturkey•about 3 hours ago

There was a secondary sale in April.

Lionga•about 5 hours ago

Boys we got more subsidy for Claude Code Plans! Let the VC financed spending of 1000$ of datacenter cost for 200$ sales price continue!

beavis000•about 3 hours ago

great point. i haven't gotten over losing the Uber subsidy!

whalesalad•about 5 hours ago

They're going to run out of letters pretty soon.

gruez•about 4 hours ago

Anyone in finance should know that excel doesn't run out of letters (for columns) either. It just rolls over to AA, AB, etc.

onychomys•about 3 hours ago

They eventually stop, Excel has a max column size of 16,384. Not sure what letter combo that would be (ZZZZZZZZZZ or something?), but it does eventually halt.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/excel-specificati...

4ashga•about 4 hours ago

That announcement is a bit short on details. I suppose that, like in the previous rounds, there are some strings attached and they'll not get all of it at once.

Hynix is participating with a new circular deal. Hynix is also valued at $1 trillion now, which is positively insane.

This scam will implode harder that the housing bubble.

techpression•about 3 hours ago

The circulation of money in AI is deeply troubling (NVIDIA being one of the worst I believe), either the bubble doesn’t pop and corruption like this is considered legal (self-inflating money amongst friends) or it pops and the financial hurt will be felt for a decade.

maxnevermind•about 3 hours ago

What is this, Series for ants? It barely covers Andrej's sign-on bonus.

dyauspitr•about 1 hour ago

Do you put this into perspective, India has built 4000 miles of new railway lines over the last five years including a Shinkansen style bullet train. That’s more than all the railway lines in the country of Switzerland for about $12 billion. The money being thrown around here is mind blowing.

aanet•about 4 hours ago

I'll have some of that joint they be smokin'

enraged_camel•about 5 hours ago

Revenue up to $47B. Looking forward to the Ed Zitron hot take on this one! No doubt he will fling more baseless accusations of fraud and other nonsense.

vb-8448•about 4 hours ago

Unless you have access to Anthropics book your claim is as baseless as Ed Zitron's ...

InsideOutSanta•about 5 hours ago

*run-rate revenue

Without more information, this number is impossible to interpret.

Analemma_•about 4 hours ago

This has become a meme which is way out over its skis. Yes, run-rate is not the complete story, but "impossible to interpret" is way overstating the case.

surgical_fire•about 3 hours ago

With all that revenue, while being the most expensive model, they are still unprofitable without trickery.

This really doesn't paint the good picture you seem to imply.

Lionga•about 5 hours ago

What do they then need another $65B for? To sell 200$ plans that cost them 1000$ to fullfill.

I can have $47B in revenue if I sell something that cost $80B to produce ez pz.

Maxatar•about 4 hours ago

Revenue is not profit.

malthaus•about 4 hours ago

nice, that's another 4 years of spacex data center usage runway!