RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
52% Positive
Analyzed from 1301 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#foundation#gates#anthropic#more#sure#deals#epstein#here#bill#claude
Discussion (63 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Seeing some of the comments here speculating about ulterior motives, I'd like to say there are probably none other than the usual (goodwill, publicity, taxes, etc.) A little known aspect of the Gates Foundation finances, their problem really isn't getting more money. Their biggest problem is spending their money faster than it grows.
[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/
That's a clear signal that little analysis has gone into the numbers and, most generously, there's nothing but the shape of a deal the details of which will be ironed out and adjusted in practice.
I get that the amounts of funding and capital being sat on for the respective parties are collossal and lead to rounding that doesn't make sense from the point of view of an individual any more (what's a few million at this scale, just round up to nearest 10, etc) but deal sizes of literally round numbers of 100s start to stretch credibility on whether any real analysis was involved.
In fact it'd be a ridiculous coincidence if it had been. They're the kind of figures where you'd recheck your calculations to check it's right as it seems too perfectly round.
Crazy how they can just lie to this extent without consequences. Or still get paid millions for making bad deals, meaning incompetence
If you're going to partner with a charitable Gates, choose the good one (though to be fair, she's probably going to be far more discerning).
And Anthropic's decision to become complicit in poisoning Memphis with Grok's methane turbines already put the lie to the idea they are the conscientious ones when it comes to large AI companies.
Gates Foundation and/or principal actors attached to the Gates Foundation have equity stakes in Anthropic ...
... and they have made a decision to direct charitable funds toward the committed purchase of Anthropic tokens.
Do I have that right ?
Very much like Huang charitable foundation committing to purchase Coreweave services[1] ... which Huang has equity stakes in ?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/nvidia-ceos-foun...
despite him controlling the Foundation.
He actively abused trafficked women including non-consensually exposing his wife to an STI
These are the worst people on the planet and should be dissected while living and live-streamed as an example to others
You sound like an exemplar citizen yourself /s
What for though? I always hear this, but what's the point of it?
I'll take the downvotes (just saw that _all_ posts that comment negatively on the foundation are well downvoted: I gave each of 'm an upvote just to counter all the AI bots on here, cause sure there are).
To explain: first, they did not pay proper taxes, in particular the older Evil here. But even more importantly, in the USA a foundation can own patents, among other things. They need to give out a certain % on a yearly basis, but basically it is a corporation.
Edit: to those downvoting, even Melinda Gates left the Gates Foundation over Epstein. Not sure why my statement is even remotely controversial.
They do good work on infection disease, vaccines, and childhood mortality in the world but this partnership speaks to the worst of what the foundation does. I hope someone there has some perspective for where they have wasted charitable funds and can use that insight here.
For reference: most enterprise commitments I've seen quoted near this range are training + dedicated capacity + a research collab. This one reads more like a multi-year managed-services contract attached to a delivery organization. Whether it produces anything depends entirely on the Foundation's eval-pipeline maturity — and historically large grant-making orgs aren't fast at standing those up.
The prompt-cache-window joke up-thread actually hits the right structural question: is $200M effectively the volume discount for committing 5-year batched workloads, or is it new R&D dollars? The press release wording is careful enough that I read it as the former.
By offering it for "free" as part of the OS. Which they could only do because they never intended to pay the developers who wrote it.
In a classic Microsoft move they fucked over their competition, their partners and the entire ecosystem for well over a decade.