Comment by YmFzZTY0ZGFkZHk
2 days ago
And so the wildly unprofitable AI company explains how it token maxes it's code and review process.
Authors should really try and view this article from the perspective of someone who has to think about cost to use the models.
I look at it as a giant experiment. Any research tends to be very investment heavy, and people are given a lot more leeway to try things which are wildly unprofitable.
I'm glad they're doing this, because it lets me see an extreme of LLM development.
We spend a few thousand dollars a month in AI code review costs.
Compare that to the cost of human code review which can take up a third of an engineer’s time. You’re looking at $50-100K a year per engineer fully loaded in code review costs.
If AI assists in code review (not even replaces – we still do human review ourselves), you could spend thousands a month per engineer and still come out ahead.
Ironic that this comment talks about cost without weighing the numbers.
It’s gotten pretty good too. My employer has a team that wrote their own code review bot with the checks and values we care about and it has gotten quite good over the last six months.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Anthropic told investors that it will profit on a measure called adjusted operating income.
"According to the report, adjusted operating income excludes stock-based compensation, which is not unusual for technology companies. However, the report also quotes its gross margins - above 80% - exclude revenue shared with distribution partners, as well as the cost of training its models."
From https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2026091414/the-...
I wonder how they account for free credits given in this spend. We got given US$5k free API credits from them a couple months ago and even accounting for our Claude Code subscription spend, I think we're still ahead overall - they haven't made any money from us! And they just gave us another few hundred bucks a month of API credit as part of our subscription.
How so? Can you link to the numbers?
Antropic's revenue is up [1], [2], [3] and if you calculate adjusted operating income (by excluding most expenses like training costs) then by that measure it is profitable. However, if you factor in all the numbers it is operating at a loss.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-v...
[2] https://fortune.com/2026/09/29/anthropic-leaked-ipo-prospect...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/15/anthropics-third-quarter-rev...
Source? Only reports I’ve seen was they were profitable for one month in last quarter due to xAI discount of renting out colossus . Be interested to learn otherwise.
That's factually incorrect, and shouldn't be allowed here.
Profitable as in after expenses.
https://youtu.be/T-oXyXwD6sE?si=tauzXVyGmQ6MhI_5
After investments. Investments they can cut if they need to. Their daily operation is very profitable, they just decided to use that to bring cash in and go on the crazy growing trajectory, instead of taking it slow and steady. But if AI progress suddenly stops, they can just scale investments back and became profitable immediately. Calling them unprofitable is highly misleading. It's not like they are an early venture company still trying to figure out their product-market fit, with totally inflated numbers based merely on a theoretical number of potential customers (while having close to zero paying ones).
1 reply →
We're talking about being actually profitable, not fake profitable.
“I think that, every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the words "bullshit earnings.” ― Charles T. Munger
And what they're reporting is adjusted even further than EBITDA
Yes when you subtract expenses and capex
[dead]