A Cheeky Pint with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei

What Hacker News said

Cites jonas21 · 2025-11 · on “Yann LeCun to depart Meta and launch AI startup focused on 'world models'”

Dario Amodei from Anthropic has made the claim that if you looked at each model as a separate business, it would be profitable [1], i.e. each model brings in more revenue over its lifetime than the total of training + inference costs. It's only because you're simultaneously training the next generation of models, which are larger and more expensive to train, but aren't generating revenue yet, that the company as a whole loses money in a given year. Now, it's not like he opened up Anthropic's books for an audit, so you don't necessarily have to trust him. But you do need to believe that either (a) what he is saying is roughly true or (b) he is making the sort of fraudulent statements that cou

Cites sothatsit · 2026-01 · on “Furiosa: 3.5x efficiency over H100s”

Inference costs scale linearly with usage. R&D expenses do not. That's not to mention that Dario Amodei has said that their models actually have a good return, even when accounting for training costs [0]. [0] [this video]

Cites sothatsit · 2026-02 · on “Show HN: NanoClaw – "Clawdbot" in 500 lines of TS with Apple container isolation”

Dario Amodei has said that their models actually have a good return, even when accounting for training costs [0]. They lose money because of R&D, training the next bigger models, and I assume also investment in other areas like data centers. Sam Altman has made similar statements, and Chinese companies also often serve their models very cheaply. All of this makes me believe them when they say they are profitable on API usage. Usage on the plans is a bit more unknown. [0] [this video]

Critical Avshalom · 2025-09 · on “Anthropic raises $13B Series F”

if you're referring to [this video] he doesn't actually say that each model has been profitable. He says "You paid $100 million and then it made $200 million of revenue. There's some cost to inference with the model, but let's just assume in this cartoonish cartoon example that even if you add those two up, you're kind of in a good state. So, if every model was a company, the model is actually, in this example is actually profitable. What's going on is that at the same time" notice those are hypothetical numbers and he just asks you to assume that inference is (sufficiently) profitable. He doesn't actually say they made money by the EoL of some model.

Critical Avshalom · 2026-03 · on “No, it doesn't cost Anthropic $5k per Claude Code user”

[this video] is on such but he doesn't actually say that each model has been profitable. He says "You paid $100 million and then it made $200 million of revenue. There's some cost to inference with the model, but let's just assume in this cartoonish cartoon example that even if you add those two up, you're kind of in a good state. So, if every model was a company, the model is actually, in this example is actually profitable. What's going on is that at the same time" importantly you'll notice that he's talking revenue, and assumes that inference is cheap enough/profitable enough that 100M + Inferance_Over_Lifetime < 200M