If virtually any other company in the world said "we have internal AI servers and we let our employees use them" ... the company would measure that as they would any other internal expenditure: by how much it costs them. You blow $50k a year on servers running your LLMs? It cost you $50k.
Only a company like Anthropic, desperate to make news and help their IPO, would measure by the cost they charge customers. It's as ridiculous as Microsoft counting every employee's use of MS Word ... as if it had paid the full consumer price of each copy.
A clear example is Google. They can easily give all compute to Deepmind, yet majority is allocated to be sold at market rate.
So, every compute Deepmind and Googlers get is lost revenue opportunity and must be measured as such.
No other internal tools or servers has this much external demand to be comparable.
Also, Anthropic is showing that to operate at Anthropic level, you need $300,000 compute spend per employee
You could also look at the opportunity cost of not letting Deepmind do quite as much research. How much is additional research worth on the margin? There will be diminishing returns.
You have confused necessary and sufficient.
Even within a single moment, if there is capacity for an internal request, just send it, if market traffic is currently at 100%, don't.
Maybe, but it also reduces supply that can drive up prices
source? The most optimistic calculations don't come anywhere close to that.
They have never claimed that the API rates are the "real cost" of the compute spend.
There are a bunch of open source harnesses that are competitive with CC and they aren't using anywhere near that many tokens to do it.
Anthropic recently handed out free cloud resources (it's still free, guess they want you to get used to the fact that cloud is not free). I went through $250 cloud budget in less than 2 days.
Feels almost as expensive as LLM calls.
However, so is my phone!
Anthropic isn’t booking it as GAAP revenue, they’re just using the number for marketing.
If Anthropic had revealed their internal cost, there comments would be complaining that they were hiding something and giving useless, unrelatable data.
The expenditure is most interesting when compared to retail rates, because that's the rate the rest of us have to compare against.
Plus electricity
In a similar way, internal employees would have also a "standard daily rate" like an external employee.
Yea, isn't the entire point of RSI to replace your employees altogether? So you'd spend an infinite amount more on AI than employees in that theoretical.
Like, if you were in an energy generation business spending way more on fuel and capital expenditures is way better than having zillions of employees earning checks , it would be a sign of efficiency.
So you are apparently now claiming my local train company or law firm will be using as many tokens per employee as an A.I. lab.
This is the world of spend more, get valued more; obviously the investment will be used to spend more and get more, so it must be good. This is investor-think. If you don't have spend, why do you need investment?
(Or it could be bad. Very very bad)
I guess kinda put you in a bubble a little, I wonder how the experience of Anthropic eng who left the company would look like, when such eng would go and spend few $K a day in non AI lab, would that be encourage/allowed/taken as example?
I doubt they are bringing that much value to the company for whatever work is done with that much token.
Now spend 0.5x their salary on AI, and they become 5x productive compared to no AI.
Now spend 1.1x their salary on AI, and they become 20x productive compared to no AI.
It's still obviously worth it to spend the 1.1x. But it is truly remarkable that the biggest cost of hiring a knowledge worker is no longer their salary, but their AI usage.
There is no implication here that employees are being replaced by AI spend, as long as all of the productivity is generating profit. The AI usage still needs a knowledge worker to direct it in ways that it can't direct itself, so you still need the employees.
This is what I am getting at. If this were true - and I've yet to see evidence it is, despite some anecdotal evidence (organizationally, IME, it's about 2-3x for power users, and probably a net loss of productivity in certain areas) - why would their headcount be growing so much still YoY, pretty much doubling every year. If the AI is 10-20xing why such a big jump in headcount? Yes, the numbers are shiny, the growth is apparent, I would just expect with this AI narrative they'd be "doing more with less" as this thing improves every year.
> The AI usage still needs a knowledge worker to direct it in ways that it can't direct itself, so you still need the employees.
This is the story AI sells though, and Anthropic has participated in it heavily. Yet, their interview process requires hard skills and doesn't let you use AI, so clearly, what you're saying is correct, it just doesn't really align in my head with the whole knowledge worker being replaced narrative.
And I’m sure more than that. But there’s obviously plenty to work on, and they’re not at the point they can just Claude their way through it.
So it exceeds employee pay if you discount the vast majority of employee pay.
There's a lot to unpack about this statement.
Including the fact that it's probably not true.
If something is compensation, it can often be negotiated and traded off against other compensation components. How many people have successfully negotiated AI tokens away in favour of salary/bonus/stock? I'm going to guess "approximately zero".
I haven't seen anyone treating AI tokens as employee compensation. If anyone can show me an article where employees were paying taxes on their token use at work, please share it.
Companies have been treating AI tokens as part of the cost of having employees, like the cost of their office or travel expenses.
True, though that understates the author's problem a bit because it's surrounded with more wrong-words, indicating a deeper wrong-idea. (Compensation vs. costs.)
Many companies used to brag about about how nice the laptop or office was as a way of convincing people to work there. Often in the same breath as compensation.
But compensation is only one component of cost.
So I think this guy is confused about what it costs to have an employee and what the employee gets out of it. Possibly intentionally.
The real question is what could they have done with open weight models on the same compute they’re renting. If the answer is “basically the same” then this flips the entire conversion back to what is Anthropic’s moat here.
This is the nature of managed anything. AI efficiency will improve but essentially this is what automation does.
Would Anthropic themselves be paying this much if it was actually billed? It is not obvious.
Is Anthropic a good sample for AI use? Surely not, since they have special needs (dogfooding) and a vested interest in proving that AI usage is the future.
Can we compare their results pre and post AI usage? Close to definitionally impossible.
Are their employees good examples of AI-assisted engineers? Not really, as (one would hope) they're more well versed on the topic than an average eng.
- @fable, plz s0lv3 Riemann. You are doing great.
- @claude. rewrite yourself for the 10000th time. Use as many tokens as you like.
Or has it broken out of its jail and taken over the board? Dario seems like a bit of a windbag anyways, AI can probably automate most of what he does these days.
All this news says is Company A uses internally the resource they sell externally at ($X) value. It's not saying how much it cost the company to generate said consumed resource
These are not mutually exclusive points, and I find it a common issue to get both sides to understand.
both of those companies combined are smaller than the number of people microsoft is trying to buy out right now