NHacker Next
  • new
  • past
  • show
  • ask
  • show
  • jobs
  • submit
Anthropic raises $30B in Series G funding at $380B post-money valuation (anthropic.com)
reenorap 1 hours ago [-]
How is Anthropic, OpenAI and xAi going to compete against the likes of Google that can spend $200 billion a year? It’s an impossible war and all these investors are throwing their money into a bottomless insatiable pit of money.

Until the funding stops for one reason or another and then everyone loses all their money at once like a star that collapses into a black hole singularity in a femtosecond.

mrtksn 43 minutes ago [-]
Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.

It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference.

You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China.

It’s companies like OpenAI Anthropic that will move US ahead. Even if some core innovation or and capital comes from the establishment.

SoftTalker 22 minutes ago [-]
> What are the outcomes though?

NVIDIA, and contractors who build data centers, and manufacturers who supply them, will all get rich.

logicchains 4 minutes ago [-]
>It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China

As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries. Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars, bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job. Most Europeans are lucky to make $40k/year post-tax. And America is still winning on innovation because its AI models are ahead of China's both in benchmarks and in user preferences. How many people do you know professionally who use a Chinese model and agent framework instead of e.g. Claude Code or OpenAI Codex?

buccal 57 minutes ago [-]
I'm trying paid tier Gemini and it doesn't allow to keep have personal chat history when you disable training on your data, on reload of the page your chat is gone. Even free tier of ChatGPT allows disabling training on your data while allowing to keep such basic functionality.

Some technical advancements are not worth it if you do not respect your users.

MagicMoonlight 35 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I’m never using a Google product. The sole purpose of their company is to be evil. At least other companies are indifferent.
Yizahi 19 minutes ago [-]
Google is evil in passive way, like sprawling bureaucracy making you life slowly worse and worse but also doing some stuff to at least some fraction of population. OpenAI and Sam are determined and energetic evil, laser focused on making whole human population jobless and homeless in shortest way possible and not producing anything else of value, no other products. I'd rather prefer the former evil out of the two.
nickysielicki 40 minutes ago [-]
How does their top tier subscription compare in usage limits to the $200/mo Claude usage limits?
jiggawatts 23 minutes ago [-]
Another basic feature that’s missing is sharing a Gemini chat as a link anyone can view.

OpenAI figured this out: it’s awesome marketing when people send each other links to the app with a convenient text box to continue the conversation. It’s viral.

Google meanwhile set this up so that “anyone with the link can view” is actually “anyone with the link and a Google account”.

That’s grade A failure of marketing.

The PM in charge of that decision ought to be walked off a plank.

timmmmmmay 1 hours ago [-]
Google fucks up 90% of their products, why do you think Gemini is in the 10%?
davnicwil 17 minutes ago [-]
well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.

Look to GCP as an example. It had to be done, with similar competitive dynamics, it was done very well.

Look to Android as another.

longfacehorrace 20 minutes ago [-]
The conclusion Google is engaged in consumer capitalism is wild.

They're engaged in computing research and merely engage in consumer capitalism as a consequence of political and social constraints.

Products are a means to an end not the goal.

OpenAI and Anthropic are product companies and are more likely to fail like most product companies do as they will lack broad and wide depth.

Google has experience in design, implementation, and 24/7 ops with every type of SaaS there is. They can bin LLMs tomorrow and still make bank. Same cannot be said for OAI or Anthropic.

H8crilA 51 minutes ago [-]
Google has barely released a successful product in 20 years.
Yizahi 26 minutes ago [-]
Depend on the definition of the "product". For example some banal cloud storage in which everyone competes. And it's an "old" product, despite being invisibly improved behind the scenes, just like at any other provider. Google has pretty competitive storage AND they are fully abusing Android integration for AND they have pretty good bundling of that storage with other products, including, you've guessed it - LLM Gemini. So say a person is not a professional user of LLMs like a developer burning tokens in a dozen accounts simultaneously. A person has a phone and eventually memory runs out, so he buys a one click Google storage for 4 bucks. And suddenly he has Gemini Pro included too. So why pay 20 bucks to Anthropic, when Google costs 1/5 of that AND has other stuff bundled too?

So maybe Google is lagging on truly new products (btw, does Gemini itself with its TPUs count as a new product? I'd say yes), but "old" products are entrenched enough to carry them and compete.

Hamuko 47 minutes ago [-]
I thought that the likes of Android, Google Docs, Google Translate, etc. were fairly successful. Chrome and ChromeOS also seem fairly popular too.
gregable 41 minutes ago [-]
A lot of those are getting pretty close to 20 years ago.
atlimar 25 minutes ago [-]
This year:

chromeos is 17

android is 18

chrome is 18

google docs is 20

google translate is 20

infecto 1 hours ago [-]
Agree. Look at how miserably MSFT has failed at integrating AI tastefully in their business.

Google makes money selling ads. Nothing else matters.

measurablefunc 6 minutes ago [-]
They target those ads by ingesting as many signals as possible from as many input devices & sensors as they can possibly convince people to use. They make money a lot of money from advertising b/c they have managed to convince the most number of people to give them as many behavioral signals as possible & they will continue to do so. They kill products only when the signal is not valuable enough to improve their advertising business but that's clearly not the case w/ AI.
xmprt 1 hours ago [-]
Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.

In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.

stouset 51 minutes ago [-]
Google built ten different chat products, how did that go?
kingkawn 1 hours ago [-]
This was the same argument made for Google Wave and Google+ and both completely tanked
thewebguyd 57 minutes ago [-]
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.

No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.

Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.

vidarh 21 minutes ago [-]
Google Docs has no features remotely like what Google Wave was.

And there was collaborative editing long before Google Wave.

hackingonempty 55 minutes ago [-]
Social media has strong network effects that keeps competitors at bay. What network effects are OpenAI/Anthropic/etc accumulating?
heavyset_go 50 minutes ago [-]
Yes, but Gemini is actually good and so are their APIs.
root_axis 57 minutes ago [-]
Because the product quality doesn't matter if the competition isn't making any money.
dlahoda 33 minutes ago [-]
google the only ai which invests mixing llm ai with real ai, and it seems work well.
dlahoda 34 minutes ago [-]
race to the bottom. google in house cheaper inference hardware. anthropic buys it.
afavour 50 minutes ago [-]
Do they though?

Google does things I hate with their products. But the money printing machine keeps going whrrr faster and faster.

Traster 1 hours ago [-]
Well there's a good reason that OpenAI partnered up with Microsoft. The calculation is that the established big techs - Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta are all going to be significantly impacted by AI so it's not unreasonable to look at Anthropic at 10% of their market cap as a reasonable value. Would it be worth Apple to bring Anthropic in house? They failed to deliver AI themselves, they know the risks of being dependent on Google. If AI goes far enough it may totally remove Apple's differentiation.

Some of the Big Techs are building their own in house stuff (Meta, Google), but it wouldn't be crazy to see acquisitions by the others, especially if the market cools slightly. And then there's the possibility that these companies mature their revenue streams enough to start actually really throwing off money and paying off the investment.

xp84 17 minutes ago [-]
> they know the risks of being dependent on Google

I wouldn't argue it's that risky. Look at their past entanglements:

1. Google Default Search Bribe - brings in $20B a year for literally doing nothing

2. Google Maps: Google let them build their own custom app using Google's backend, and it worked fine all the way up until Apple chose to exit that arrangement

actually I can't think of any others, but is there an example of Apple getting burned by Google?

kiernanmcgowan 49 minutes ago [-]
Slight counter point - claude code is basically the only developer tool that ever been happy to pay money for. Getting the entire software industry to give you $200/mo/person is quite the market.
Ancalagon 1 hours ago [-]
how does any startup beat an incumbent?
johntiger1 1 hours ago [-]
Google's only focus isn't on Gemini. Anthropic is do-or-die
sobkas 1 hours ago [-]
Also Theranos was do-or-die and we know how it ended.
infecto 1 hours ago [-]
I fail to see what that has to do with this?
sobkas 20 minutes ago [-]
Just because something is in do-or-die situation doesn't mean that they have some kind of magical advantage over fat cat. Being in that situation means there is very real possibility of doing "die" part and we have lots of examples of them doing so.
postflopclarity 11 minutes ago [-]
very different; not a relevant comparison
bentt 27 minutes ago [-]
I’d guess they want to outlast OpenAI and then get bought by Apple or Amazon.
throwaway911282 27 minutes ago [-]
Google has invested in Anthropic. I don't trust that Google will compete on fair grounds with Anthropic on coding. Their common enemy is OpenAI.
bdangubic 1 hours ago [-]
Given the amount money that they are spending for vastly subpar products maybe they need to quadruple their capex
nadis 2 hours ago [-]
> "It has been less than three years since Anthropic earned its first dollar in revenue. Today, our run-rate revenue is $14 billion, with this figure growing over 10x annually in each of those past three years."

Wild although not entirely surprising. Congrats, Anthropic.

techblueberry 2 hours ago [-]
Next year 140 billion the following year 1.4 trillion, 14 trillion the year after that?
bix6 2 minutes ago [-]
Better be otherwise it’s a 27+ year wait for breakeven!
noupdates 1 hours ago [-]
Pay attention to the outflow of tech investment in the stock market. That money is going to move into OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs. The valuations will be as big you are thinking because the market believes these companies will represent an entire basket of startups.
marcyb5st 1 hours ago [-]
It Is more likely that people are cashing out very liquid assets (tech stocks) to pay back their loans in Yen as interest rates are rising over there.

Tech stocks with all the hype are second only to crypto in terms of how easy and fast are to sell (hence BTC dropped and now tech stocks IMHO).

Btw, I was too young to fully remember, but wasn't the year before the dot com crash also full of IPOs?

candiddevmike 1 hours ago [-]
If your thesis was correct, why wouldn't some of those "outflows" go to GOOG or NVDA?
noupdates 1 hours ago [-]
They would. You can see how resilient GOOG has been during this recent draw-down, and how much growth it has had even as AI sells off.
bdangubic 1 hours ago [-]
AI sells off… if this is a selloff than I see what everyone is talking about when they are saying we in a bubble :)
serfo022 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
p1esk 1 hours ago [-]
That’s harsh! But the alternative is to discuss economic theories on reddit.
koakuma-chan 1 hours ago [-]
And why would anyone participate in their IPOs? They would be crazily overvalued, like Figma or worse.
Ekaros 1 hours ago [-]
I really wonder is there even enough dump money from them to sell the stock they hold. Not to mention even raising any new capital... Is there really enough bag holders that will run after these stock with large enough piles of money?
laksjhdlka 1 hours ago [-]
To be fair, Facebook was at the time viewed by many as crazily overvalued.
dude250711 1 hours ago [-]
Might as well long NVDA?
noupdates 1 hours ago [-]
There are many bitter lessons ...
prewett 57 minutes ago [-]
Could you be more specific? Because NVDA has a consistent 20 year growth of something like 400x and +30%/yr, so I don't think the bitter lessons are there.
Forgeties79 1 hours ago [-]
I would hold off congratulating them until they’re actually in the black. They are still burning billions a year lol the revenue is impressive but their expenses are still solidly north of it.
MengerSponge 44 minutes ago [-]
Don't worry about it: they'll make it up in volume

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXDxNCzUspM

JackSlateur 16 minutes ago [-]
What are the benefits ?

If you give me $1T to spend, I, too, can probably make $14B (this is a metaphor)

1 hours ago [-]
criddell 12 minutes ago [-]
I wonder how good it is for companies to be allowed to grow so big and still be private? Would it makes sense to require any company with more than a billion dollar valuation to be subject to all the same SEC requirements that public companies are? Could companies be blocked from raising money once the reach a crazy valuation like $1 billion?
bix6 5 minutes ago [-]
It’s a major issue in VC. Main Street doesn’t get access until it’s time to offload. Prevents capital recycling for early stage as well.
saagarjha 2 hours ago [-]
Kind of amusing that there is basically no mention of their original mission at all here.
pbreit 1 hours ago [-]
What was their original mission?

My sense is that startup mission statements are ~meaningless. Builders try to build great things that lots of other people will find valuable.

s_dev 1 hours ago [-]
>What was their original mission?

Beat OpenAI. The Founders came from OpenAI so there was obviously some disagreement about the direction there or they simply wanted more control.

saagarjha 1 hours ago [-]
Friendly AI
dude250711 1 hours ago [-]
To maximise shareholder value.
lenerdenator 1 hours ago [-]
Technically speaking, it's to maximize shareholder value while serving the public interest. They're a public benefit corporation.
longfacehorrace 10 minutes ago [-]
OpenAI has "open" in their name but is closed off to public access and input

Google used to have a motto "don't be evil"

Who enforces the definition of language? Who demands compliance?

Soon as we go down the path of policing and insistence on one true dogma, we veer into religious holy war type behavior.

Obsession with semantics of syntax is a sort of theism even if the syntax and semantics do not refer to the commonly accepted tropes of a specific religion.

vessenes 1 hours ago [-]
It's a benefit corp
xvector 1 hours ago [-]
They've been very clear about their mission, they're doing more than anyone else when it comes to it, and if you've ever interviewed with them you'd know how critical it is to them.

But I guess it's easier to make a glib comment than look these things up.

modeless 1 hours ago [-]
$14B revenue run rate is the interesting number here.
HarHarVeryFunny 42 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, up from $1B a year ago.

Two years ago, I considered investing in Anthropic when they had a valuation of around $18B and messed up by chickening out (it was available on some of the private investor platforms). Up 20x since then ...

It was always obvious that Anthropic's focus on business/API usage had potential to scale faster than OpenAI's focus on ChatGPT, but the real kicker has been Claude Code (released a year ago).

It'd be interesting to know how Anthropic's revenue splits between Claude Code, or coding in general, other API usage, and chat (which I assume is small).

winfortheworld 38 minutes ago [-]
what are the private investor platform you mentioned ? and what are the requirements to join in?
modeless 35 minutes ago [-]
Hiive and Forge Global are the ones I know of. You must be an "accredited investor" which means nothing at all except that you have a million dollars or make $200k/yr.
throwaway911282 25 minutes ago [-]
Like you can buy shares of Anthropic as long as you prove you make over 200K? That easy? Shouldn't they approve of the purchase? Sorry, noob in this space!
joshribakoff 34 minutes ago [-]
EquityBee got me investors to exercise my Brex options, in exchange for giving up some small beta
dest 2 hours ago [-]
Soon we will lack letters for funding rounds!
rileymichael 15 minutes ago [-]
considering their series F was only ~5 months ago this doesn't seem too far-fetched!
endymi0n 2 hours ago [-]
G is tame. Wait until you hear of Databricks’ Series K…

https://www.thesaasnews.com/news/databricks-raises-1b-series...

kevstev 7 minutes ago [-]
A few years back, well ok maybe almost ten now, but regardless- a recruiter reached out to me about a role at a "series G" company like it was a selling point, and I was just kinda like ok maybe thats signaling its relatively stable and can raise money, but at the same time, that's a lot of rounds to have preferences ensure unprivileged shareholders get nothing, and also to have most of the hockey stick growth already tapped out.

This was in the middle of the boom when companies were fighting over talent, so I found it odd.

teeray 1 hours ago [-]
Emojis would be far more appropriate for AI startups
gedy 1 hours ago [-]
They could stop at F and treat it as hexadecimal by adding digits: Series 4F, etc
matt3210 1 hours ago [-]
Oh dang, no wonder they’re auto coding so much garbage in public (crap c compiler, crap browser, crap salesforce).
strange_quark 1 hours ago [-]
The timing of the Claude Code guerilla marketing campaign that seems to have started around new years is now making much more sense.
heavyset_go 48 minutes ago [-]
It's wild watching people fall for it
rhrtah 28 minutes ago [-]
Goldman Sachs recently stoked fear about software stocks due to claimed AI competition.

What if their strategy is this: slowly drive down software stocks, keep talking about AI, buy the downward market. Then cash in on the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic.

Then let OpenAI and Anthropic implode. Goldman Sachs had no problems underwriting webvan at the end of 1999, which then imploded in 2000.

Anyway, I just valued my dog at $1 billion post-money. You can buy it at pets.com.

finolex1 15 minutes ago [-]
You're attributing way too much intent to what is the viewpoint of some random analyst at Goldman Sachs (who doesn't even control any purse strings). A year ago there was another big hullabaloo when a GS team wrote a long post about how AI companies would never make enough revenue.
jrjeksjd8d 22 minutes ago [-]
Matt Levine has put this forward in his newsletter - if you're moderately influential you can go on TV and tell people that "X industry will be dead in 10 years" because of AI and then profit from the inevitable stock dip.

Because we live in the worst possible timeline the end result for AI companies does seem to be "too big to fail", where these massive investments will get foisted on working class people via a bailout or an IPO and index inclusion.

nradov 48 minutes ago [-]
When will we see the first $1T valuation for a private company? What do you call a herd of 1000 unicorns together?
vanshg 34 minutes ago [-]
ben_w 39 minutes ago [-]
> What do you call a herd of 1000 unicorns together?

As millipede, clearly therefore millicorn.

i7l 2 minutes ago [-]
The collective noun for a group of unicorns in AI is known as a hallucination, as in: a hallucination of unicorns.
xvector 1 hours ago [-]
How are they not overvalued? At some point OSS will be sufficient for most businesses, what then?
nikcub 6 minutes ago [-]
Funny I consider this valuation modest considering what the max extent of the investment thesis is here.

SaaS and legal market caps have already contracted a multiple of the combined OpenAI + Anthropic valuations just based on the _threat_ of what they may be able to accomplish.

They'll have the data + knowledge edge over open alternatives and be able to implement + deploy (see the story about Anthropic employees being at GS for 6 months already[0])

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/06/anthropic-goldman-sachs-ai-m...

mcmcmc 1 hours ago [-]
They’ll become commodity AI compute providers while training and selling premium foundation models.
Yizahi 13 minutes ago [-]
Then they will fall back on the selling their other real competitive products - hardware accelerators, phones and PCs, cloud storage and cloud compute, enterprise software, databases, operating systems, office and media suits... Oh wait...
phreeza 1 hours ago [-]
These companies are spending billions on custom datasets for a gazillion of valuable tasks and are clamping down on exfil for distillation. It's not guaranteed open source models will continue to keep pace.
marcyb5st 1 hours ago [-]
China might purchase the data and train their models just to make the AI bubble pop. A few billions to throw a wrench in your competing superpower economy might be totally worth it
CuriouslyC 1 hours ago [-]
And yet open models have been tailing closer lately?
vessenes 1 hours ago [-]
What do you value a company at that has gotten to $14b in revenue in 3 years and has 60%+ margin on inference? Just out of curiosity.
JackSlateur 11 minutes ago [-]
60%+ margin on inference: source ?

+ r&d costs

Of course, if one does not "pay" for investment, benefits are easily made ..

xvector 56 minutes ago [-]
I am struggling with this because I have an Anthropic offer vs another equivalent offer that is all cash.

But project out forwards.

- What happens when Google builds a similar model? Or even Meta, as far behind as they are? They have more than Anthropic in cash flow to pour into these models.

- What happens when OSS is "enough" for most cases? Why would anyone pay 60% margins on inference?

What is Anthropic's moat? The UX is nice, but it can be copied. And other companies will have similarly intelligent models eventually. Margins will then be a race to the bottom, and the real winners will be GPU infra.

underyx 11 minutes ago [-]
If you have an offer, you can and should ask this question of whomever you're coordinating with. They will give you an honest answer.
jrjeksjd8d 20 minutes ago [-]
I've been in this situation before. Anthropic has a stupid business model but the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. If you get in there you will be aligned with people who structurally do not lose.
Hamuko 50 minutes ago [-]
Is their overall margin also about 60% too? Or something saner like 30%?
lotsofpulp 16 minutes ago [-]
Their overall margin is negative.
Yizahi 38 minutes ago [-]
"Post-money" is the euphemism for the glorious end of capitalism, when we will be paying in corporate scrip, Arasaka-style? :)
SoftTalker 21 minutes ago [-]
Annoyed parent voice: What happened to the $13 billion I gave you 4 months ago?
bdangubic 20 minutes ago [-]
check your credit card statement Dad
hchak 1 hours ago [-]
They did say they were going to cover the electricity bills...
2OEH8eoCRo0 55 minutes ago [-]
Is everyone competing to steal Google's ad cash-cow? This is the only way these investments make sense.
Hamuko 51 minutes ago [-]
I think the idea is to reduce labor costs by replacing the human workers.
2OEH8eoCRo0 43 minutes ago [-]
I haven't used it to replace workers though, only to replace Google search. My company is pushing copilot but it's only $16/user/mo. Hardly lucrative and no moat.
xvector 28 minutes ago [-]
OTOH my company spends well into the $hundreds/user/day on Claude.
JackSlateur 10 minutes ago [-]
They are insane
IshKebab 2 hours ago [-]
Absolutely wild valuation given their lack of a moat isn't it?
bonesss 1 hours ago [-]
Microsoft is deeply entwined in OpenAI and has obvious reasons to dogfood, yet their people are using Anthropic solutions.

Valuation behemoth OpenAI has been forced by the market to use Anthropic standards a couple times, having no comparable solutions of their own.

… I can see it.

CuriouslyC 1 hours ago [-]
Anthropic's marketing somehow punches hard. Not sure why, but the stuff they do sticks. Not because the products are great, but because the way they communicate about it gives people the right feeling. They do have legitimately the best coding model now for most tasks, and for narrative prose, but the marketing stuck and people stan'd them even when they were trailing.
LunaSea 56 minutes ago [-]
Anthropic develops tools for developers and power users which are the actual people doing the evangelizing and marketing for them.
rconti 1 hours ago [-]
It's Web 2.0 all over again. No moat, winner-take-all (economies-of-scale/network-effect). Just have to out-spend everyone else, and then figure out whether it was worth it all after you win.
tyre 2 hours ago [-]
Having a cutting edge model that requires tens of billions of dollars to train + a massive concentration of talent and experience + brand + one of, if not the best, coding experiences in Claude Code

These are all moats.

9cb14c1ec0 47 minutes ago [-]
The moat seems rather small right now. There are 7 different companies represented in the top 10 models on openrouter.
fermentation 1 hours ago [-]
Couldn’t their excellent model and coding experience generate another excellent coding CLI tool?
wasmainiac 1 hours ago [-]
> tens of billions of dollars to train

Source??

rconti 1 hours ago [-]
> cutting edge model that requires tens of billions of dollars to train

seems like there are a lot of those out there these days, and the costs are falling

> a massive concentration of talent and experience

Apparently 3000 employees? There's plenty of talent to be found elsewhere. Plus employees can be hired away.

> brand

meh.

> one of, if not the best, coding experiences

Seems easy enough to replicate, given how quickly they built it.

selfawareMammal 2 hours ago [-]
Ain't that for the entire ai field.
hvb2 2 hours ago [-]
FOMO, pretty much
Hamuko 2 hours ago [-]
They have a moat on hype.
lenerdenator 1 hours ago [-]
At least from the software engineer pleb perspective, their moat is that their tools seem to work well more often than not. I wasn't comfortable with the idea of using GitHub CoPilot as our GenAI solution at work, and apparently that was a widespread feeling, because we switched to Claude Code, and it's been a relatively smooth transition from manual coding to GenAI agentic loops.
andrewmcwatters 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
nimchimpsky 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cube00 2 hours ago [-]
Anthropic is the clear category leader in enterprise AI

Citation needed.

rf15 2 hours ago [-]
As the clear category leader in HN posting, I agree
dude250711 1 hours ago [-]
Google has an edge, always a "personal experience" comment about leaving OpenAI/Anthropic in the dust every time new model gets posted.
otterley 2 hours ago [-]
It's marketing copy--I wouldn't expect them to say otherwise.
dev_l1x_be 2 hours ago [-]
It is quite obviously Microsoft. They use the same (in my dictionary illegal) tactic they did with Teams.
techblueberry 2 hours ago [-]
I mean, I do think it is true, I’m not sure if this is like fastest toddler in the preschool or whatever.
DANmode 2 hours ago [-]
Microsoft engineers use their offerings over OpenAI - their partner.

That isn’t nothing.

stonogo 1 hours ago [-]
It is approximately nothing, since lots of MS engineers use Apple products too.
DANmode 31 minutes ago [-]
Apple does pretty well for themselves - are you sure that’s not a positive signal for Anthropic?
nimchimpsky 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
verdverm 2 hours ago [-]
it's crazy that Google is spending something like 4x this in a year just for capex

wonder how much of that $30B will make it their way and pay that down

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact
Rendered at 21:26:29 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.