6 ms·

In another context I might see it as vendor financing. However given that Google and Anthropic are competitors in this segment and given that Google has previou

In another context I might see it as vendor financing. However given that Google and Anthropic are competitors in this segment and given that Google has previously invested in them I'd rather see this as a sort of bartered stock purchase presumably for the purpose of hedging against failure. If Anthropic wins the race and it turns out to be winner takes all and you happen to own half of Anthropic then you still win half of the immediate spoils even though your internal team lost. If you view losing the race as an existential threat then having all your eggs in the one basket is a terrible proposition.

skybrian 6mo ago
Sure, since Google is both a supplier and a competitor, it’s both vendor finance and hedging. Also, it increases their investment in AI, in general. Arguably, too much of this kind of hedging is anti-competitive. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a problem yet?
- bonesss 6mo ago
  Are we stoping too early in this analysis though? Google versus OpenAI and Anthropic, sure, but Microsoft is deep into OpenAI. Google helping Anthropic is also putting MS into a corner (one that may even be shrinking? Copilot and openAI financing hurting their brand, rumours of deep displeasure at OpenAIs promises v returns). Seen from afar I see Google happy to provide TPUs for money (improving Googles strategic positioning), torpedoing confidence in LLMs with their search AI summaries, and using their bankroll to force larger competitors (MS in particular), to keep investments high regardless of performance and user revolts and internal tensions with Sam Altmans sales approach. Plus, Anthropic is in ‘the lead’ right now product wise, so grooming them as a potential purchase would also seem to be a strategic hedge in the long term.
  - ojosilva 6mo ago
    MS is not so deep with OpenAI, it's not all black and white, they have signed several distribution deals where Claude drives Copilot [1], since Anthropic and MS are better aligned in the Enterprise market, it makes sense. It also makes sense for MS not to lose ground anywhere at this point and play with the best. Actually, any cash rich company that is not OpenAI or Anthropic wants to be close-by when any of the two needs money. That's the ultimate win they can aspire for right now, get a financial slice of frontier models on one hand while not losing revenue on the other given the existential ordeal AI represents for them. 1. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2026/03/09/copilot-cowork-a-new-way-of-getting-work-done/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2026/03/0...
  - throwaway2037 6mo ago
    You make some good points, but this part feels like a wild overreach: > torpedoing confidence in LLMs with their search AI summaries That is some real tin foil hat thinking.
    - bonesss 6mo ago
      Straightforward observations of market impact aren’t tin foil :) Google didn’t launch LLM products despite being a tech leader, and have gotten piles of bad press for their misleading AI search summaries. They know how and why they suck. Google search is a highly popular and market facing service packaging bad summaries as “AI”. Meanwhile LLM searches threaten to disrupt Googles primary cash cow (advertising around search). Here on HN, on Reddit, and media writ large, a lot of the “AI” failure stories are not about ChatGPT hallucinations, it’s the shockingly wrong search summaries from Google, undermining consumer confidence and breaching trust. ChatGPT and other LLM providers rarely show conflicting source material side by side with misleading text gen. The number one search provider who leads in some LLM tech does though, routinely, looking incompetent and generating negative “AI” sentiment through repeated failures at mass scale… So the theory here is either that the best search org in the world filled with geniuses can’t tell they’re pooping on their own product and profitability and aren’t fixing it because they can’t/won’t… … or <tinfoil mode engaged>… Google already makes money and is happy with substandard product and market performance in the cases where it hurts the necessary hype critical to other businesses but not themselves (while also pre-positioning in case LLM search becomes essential). Win/win/win strategy with a substandard product, versus Google not being aware of what their biggest product is doing. Googles AI summaries are doing lotsa work to make AI summaries seem terrible. I ascribe profit motives to their actions. Ascribing incompetence seems naive and irreconcilable with their strategic corporate history.
- thayne 6mo ago
  > Arguably, too much of this kind of hedging is anti-competitive. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a problem yet? By the time it is a problem, it will be too late.
windexh8er 6mo ago
I look at this as Google needs a competitor. While Anthropic seems to be the flavor of the quarter OAI looks like such a dumpster fire right now that it's in Google's best interest to help keep Anthropic moving towards winning the #2 spot. I say the #2 spot because it doesn't matter how good this week's LLM is. Until someone else owns the infra and has an actually profitable business model they're all just lighting money and the world around us on fire. I actually mentioned to a Google friend the other week that I wouldn't be surprised to see Google tipping the hat towards Anthropic soon so as to put a little more heat on OAI.
lukan 6mo ago
How can there be a "winner takes it all" situation with AI? OpenAI lead the game while they were best. Antrophic followed and got better. Now openAI is catching up again and also google with gemini(?) ... and the open weight models are 2 years behind. Any win here seems only temporary. Even if a new breakthrough to a strong AI happen somehow.
- teaearlgraycold 6mo ago
  Not even 2 years behind.
- conradkay 6mo ago
  Recursive self-improvement is one argument. Otherwise winner takes all seems much less likely than a OpenAI/Anthropic duopoly. For the best models, obviously other providers will have plenty of uses, but even looking at the revenue right now it's pretty concentrated at the top. So if I'm Google I'd want a decent chunk of at least one of them.
  - svnt 6mo ago
    What is the argument for a duopoly when Kimi and Deepseek models are only months behind? It’s a commodity in the making.
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      That's certainly how it looks right now but where's the guarantee? What happens if it turns out that deep learning on its own can't achieve AGI but someone figures out a proprietary algorithm that can? That sort of thing. Metaphorically we're a bunch of tribesmen speculating about the future potential outcomes of the space race (ie the impacts, limits, and timeline of ASI).
      - zarzavat 6mo ago
        Imagine such an AI exists. What good is AI that is so good that you cannot sell API access because it would help others to build equivalently powerful AI and compete with you? If you gatekeep, you will not make back the money you invested. If you don't gatekeep, your competitors will use your model to build competing models. I guess you can sell it to the Department of War.
BobbyTables2 6mo ago
I wonder if Google is that much a competitor. Sure, they tried to make an AI of their own. But they also have access to an unimaginably large data set plus reach into people’s daily lives. Seems more like partners for world domination.
svnt 6mo ago
$40B is not anywhere near half of Anthropic at this point. You do get the same access as nvidia, aws, and other investors, which has value.

skybrian 6mo ago

Sure, since Google is both a supplier and a competitor, it’s both vendor finance and hedging. Also, it increases their investment in AI, in general. Arguably, too much of this kind of hedging is anti-competitive. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a problem yet?

bonesss 6mo ago
Are we stoping too early in this analysis though? Google versus OpenAI and Anthropic, sure, but Microsoft is deep into OpenAI. Google helping Anthropic is also putting MS into a corner (one that may even be shrinking? Copilot and openAI financing hurting their brand, rumours of deep displeasure at OpenAIs promises v returns). Seen from afar I see Google happy to provide TPUs for money (improving Googles strategic positioning), torpedoing confidence in LLMs with their search AI summaries, and using their bankroll to force larger competitors (MS in particular), to keep investments high regardless of performance and user revolts and internal tensions with Sam Altmans sales approach. Plus, Anthropic is in ‘the lead’ right now product wise, so grooming them as a potential purchase would also seem to be a strategic hedge in the long term.
- ojosilva 6mo ago
  MS is not so deep with OpenAI, it's not all black and white, they have signed several distribution deals where Claude drives Copilot [1], since Anthropic and MS are better aligned in the Enterprise market, it makes sense. It also makes sense for MS not to lose ground anywhere at this point and play with the best. Actually, any cash rich company that is not OpenAI or Anthropic wants to be close-by when any of the two needs money. That's the ultimate win they can aspire for right now, get a financial slice of frontier models on one hand while not losing revenue on the other given the existential ordeal AI represents for them. 1. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2026/03/09/copilot-cowork-a-new-way-of-getting-work-done/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2026/03/0...
- throwaway2037 6mo ago
  You make some good points, but this part feels like a wild overreach: > torpedoing confidence in LLMs with their search AI summaries That is some real tin foil hat thinking.
  - bonesss 6mo ago
    Straightforward observations of market impact aren’t tin foil :) Google didn’t launch LLM products despite being a tech leader, and have gotten piles of bad press for their misleading AI search summaries. They know how and why they suck. Google search is a highly popular and market facing service packaging bad summaries as “AI”. Meanwhile LLM searches threaten to disrupt Googles primary cash cow (advertising around search). Here on HN, on Reddit, and media writ large, a lot of the “AI” failure stories are not about ChatGPT hallucinations, it’s the shockingly wrong search summaries from Google, undermining consumer confidence and breaching trust. ChatGPT and other LLM providers rarely show conflicting source material side by side with misleading text gen. The number one search provider who leads in some LLM tech does though, routinely, looking incompetent and generating negative “AI” sentiment through repeated failures at mass scale… So the theory here is either that the best search org in the world filled with geniuses can’t tell they’re pooping on their own product and profitability and aren’t fixing it because they can’t/won’t… … or <tinfoil mode engaged>… Google already makes money and is happy with substandard product and market performance in the cases where it hurts the necessary hype critical to other businesses but not themselves (while also pre-positioning in case LLM search becomes essential). Win/win/win strategy with a substandard product, versus Google not being aware of what their biggest product is doing. Googles AI summaries are doing lotsa work to make AI summaries seem terrible. I ascribe profit motives to their actions. Ascribing incompetence seems naive and irreconcilable with their strategic corporate history.
thayne 6mo ago
> Arguably, too much of this kind of hedging is anti-competitive. But that doesn’t seem to be much of a problem yet? By the time it is a problem, it will be too late.

windexh8er 6mo ago

I look at this as Google needs a competitor. While Anthropic seems to be the flavor of the quarter OAI looks like such a dumpster fire right now that it's in Google's best interest to help keep Anthropic moving towards winning the #2 spot. I say the #2 spot because it doesn't matter how good this week's LLM is. Until someone else owns the infra and has an actually profitable business model they're all just lighting money and the world around us on fire. I actually mentioned to a Google friend the other week that I wouldn't be surprised to see Google tipping the hat towards Anthropic soon so as to put a little more heat on OAI.

lukan 6mo ago

How can there be a "winner takes it all" situation with AI? OpenAI lead the game while they were best. Antrophic followed and got better. Now openAI is catching up again and also google with gemini(?) ... and the open weight models are 2 years behind. Any win here seems only temporary. Even if a new breakthrough to a strong AI happen somehow.

teaearlgraycold 6mo ago
Not even 2 years behind.
conradkay 6mo ago
Recursive self-improvement is one argument. Otherwise winner takes all seems much less likely than a OpenAI/Anthropic duopoly. For the best models, obviously other providers will have plenty of uses, but even looking at the revenue right now it's pretty concentrated at the top. So if I'm Google I'd want a decent chunk of at least one of them.
- svnt 6mo ago
  What is the argument for a duopoly when Kimi and Deepseek models are only months behind? It’s a commodity in the making.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    That's certainly how it looks right now but where's the guarantee? What happens if it turns out that deep learning on its own can't achieve AGI but someone figures out a proprietary algorithm that can? That sort of thing. Metaphorically we're a bunch of tribesmen speculating about the future potential outcomes of the space race (ie the impacts, limits, and timeline of ASI).
    - zarzavat 6mo ago
      Imagine such an AI exists. What good is AI that is so good that you cannot sell API access because it would help others to build equivalently powerful AI and compete with you? If you gatekeep, you will not make back the money you invested. If you don't gatekeep, your competitors will use your model to build competing models. I guess you can sell it to the Department of War.

BobbyTables2 6mo ago

I wonder if Google is that much a competitor. Sure, they tried to make an AI of their own. But they also have access to an unimaginably large data set plus reach into people’s daily lives. Seems more like partners for world domination.

svnt 6mo ago

$40B is not anywhere near half of Anthropic at this point. You do get the same access as nvidia, aws, and other investors, which has value.