3 ms·

That's a bit hyperbolic. It's closer to using EBITDA as your "earnings" and bucketing model costs in a rapid depreciation model (which is fair, I'd assume a mo

• JumpCrisscross 12d ago
  It's gross margin. Not including training in gross margin is perfectly reasonable.
  • lovich 12d ago
    The models don’t exist without training. I don’t see how excluding the training cost from the thing they are selling(inference) is perfectly reasonable and not just an accounting trick. If I am building a widget and have a widget factory that cost money to build and operate, is it reasonable to only use the cost of shipping my widgets to my buyer as the costs for my gross margin?
    • maerF0x0 12d ago
      Generally speaking, IDK about Anthropic specifically, they don't train purely from scratch though. A good chunk of the setup is reused previous models can serve as a basis for the next model. Plus there are methods that also use the previous model as a warm start. Just taking a wild guess, but I'd assume the .5 releases are built on the previous and the Majors (3, 4, 5) are more extensive retrains?
      • lovich 12d ago
        That’s maybe a reasonable argument but it’s not one Anthropic is making. If the article is to be believed they aren’t including their training costs. Also lol at reporting it as above 80% without accounting for the revenue sharing as well. I bet anyone’s finances look great if you just start ignoring all the money they owe.
        • maerF0x0 12d ago
          > I bet anyone’s finances look great if you just start ignoring all the money they owe. Lol and truth.
        • JumpCrisscross 12d ago
          > If the article is to be believed they aren’t including their training costs In this metric. Revenues aren't a scam because they don't include costs. We're getting a partial picture. But concluding adversely based on selective disclosure that isn't in control of the person disclosing doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially when it's a compelling narrative.
    • s1artibartfast 12d ago
      This concern trolling on behalf of people that can't read to the end of a sentence, about a conversation that they aren't even part of. Anthropic is clear on what they are communicating. If every message had to be dumbed down to the level of the least attentive person to run across a message third hand, we could communicate and nothing but grunts.
      • nemomarx 12d ago
        I would like them to communicate something else though (ie reveal what their training costs are, how much revenue share they have and with who) so I could have some idea of their actual profit margins. They're not public yet so they're within rights to withhold that, but it does mean this isn't very useful information for a lot of questions one might have?
        • JumpCrisscross 12d ago
          > would like them to communicate something else though Then wait for the S-1. They aren't communicating internal financials to you.
        • s1artibartfast 12d ago
          Sure, it leaves many people with unanswered questions. I wish all companies would provide me with their confidential information. I find it fascinating that so many people default to Indignant outrage and critique because they want more
    • JumpCrisscross 12d ago
      > models don’t exist without training. I don’t see how excluding the training cost from the thing they are selling(inference) is perfectly reasonable Planes and cars take a lot of capital to develop. That's a fixed cost. Building them consumes labour and resources. Those are variable costs. It's useful to know the slop of the variable-cost function.
  • freejazz 12d ago
    Unfortunately, just stating that something is reasonable does not make it true.