https://www.wired.com/story/data-center-industry-is-trying-t...

Inside Wall Street’s booming $1tn ‘synthetic risk transfer’ phenomenon (2024)

https://www.ft.com/content/d91d35fc-93ab-4963-8587-7a00fe5c6...

The numbers are out there for all. Dropping token prices. Rising borrowing rates. Absurd contractual commitments. Commoditizing technology.

We're looking for thoughtful, curious conversation here, not grandiose/indignant oneliners.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But with a 2T valuation-- if they did raise, let's say, 300B, that's a 15% float, maybe they'd have a chance.

518 B in future compute obligations for the coming decade. 300 B, then 218 B is left. That's 13x their current revenue, not too far from 10x their current revenue.

Perhaps they could survive if they raised 300B. With that they'd only need to increase revenue a little bit, and that's probably possible, what with inflation and all.

The big problem is if there's improvements in AI accelerators that aren't going to be be bought by the companies that the people to whom Anthropic have obligations are likely to buy from. So if Google, AWS or NVIDIA end up not being the leaders in tokens/$, then Anthropic are screwed.

I'm not sure how the total picture ends up if one adds OpenAI to the picture.

They aren't in trouble at all.

"China can do it cheaper" applies well to your personal projects. It doesn't apply well when you handle things like trade secrets, healthcare, or financial data.

OpneAI stole valuable secrets from their customers Buckmaster and Alpöge, why should a company expect them not to do the same with their trade secrets?

What was the nature of Buckmaster & Alpöge's business relationship with OpenAI?

When we started using Claude at my work, it wasn't just with Anthropic-hosted instances of the service. As I understand it, we use a copy hosted on a GCP Vertex AI instance. It'd be weird if Anthropic ended up with our data.

If Buckmaster & Alpöge had some sort of agreement with OpenAI that their inputs would not be used to train OpenAI's models or otherwise generate revenue for the company, yeah, that's theft.

If Buckmaster & Alpöge were using the same OpenAI-hosted services as everyone else with a standard EULA that effectively says "we get to look at your data and do what we want with it", well, then I don't know what they expected.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority...

These are open models, go speak to corporates see what they’re up to

Also the healthcare bit is funny. Go ask the healthcare bigs and their intermediates what they’re doing today, hint it’s India

American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology

Funny you should mention that.

I am a team lead in a healthcare IT company. On my team are two people in India and one person (besides me) in the US.

These aren't contractors. They're full-time employees. Vetted, interviewed, subject to corporate policies like everyone here in the US, given a VPN to connect to things with.

Wanna guess what they are absolutely forbidden from doing by the contract that our clients signed, and by extension, what the people located in the US spend a lot of time doing that they otherwise wouldn't have to?

> American corporates have zero loyalty to America or Americans, and they love bypassing laws, attempting regulatory capture on American corps is braindead and shows a weak hand, as they speak all this bluster about 2-3T valuations for an easily reproducible technology

No arguments there, they should be taught the meaning of loyalty.

I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. Anthropic and OpenAI still have such large market shares only because their services are heavily subsidized. This can't go on forever.

At some point, they will have to stop burning investor money and start hiking prices. At that point, all of their competitors will look even better than they do now. So I don't see how these two companies in particular can generate enough profit to justify their costs.

Yeah shut up idiot - they need to raise prices to cover operating expenditures and reinvestment that stays inline with the valuation. If it implodes they’ll have trouble raising money later and they’ll need to lay off people - aka on bad terms.

This cycle will continue every 3-5 years. Given the supply for this hardware can’t keep up with the demand, they’ll be expected to pay more with each cycle.

Heard of it? No? Shut up then. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

when this happened PR rate dropped 95% in the first day, thousands devs, managers started to panic and downscaling all AI first intiatives and cap 500 usd a month token usage . most tokens were burned in the first day of the week.

as management got pissed, M$ people managed to sneak in and sell Copilot with up 600 usd a month token usage per dev …

devs and devops are now the most unhappy about models switch and probably haven’t seen the impact of sucking entire code base in copilot. copilot is too slow for them too. addiction to claude code is clearly present. using personal software licenses and unauthorised soft is strictly forbidden

story is clearly not over yet ..

as for myself, i’m ready to pay up to 1k usd a month … if if … claude gives the edge… but if it becomes commodity im gone next day

very curious what other devs in corporations are experiencing. deep inside cheerleading for 2 tie token ecosystem - full price for corporations and subsidized for small shops and indie

IMO, $500 a month is pretty good for most dev work if you select models appropriately for the task (yourself), especially with how token efficient Opus 5.5 medium is. Unfortunately, people with subscription seats can easily get addicted to Fable, higher effort, fast mode, etc.

there is something in there, and im quite sure someday it will bubble up to the surface and people will be sour. people who use claude that is.

yes, its just a hunch. but i can see these tactics, and u cant tell me its just corporate policies that were whoopsiedaisy. They are getting more from people using claude code than other harnesses, enough to ban and fearmonger people into not using those other harnesses.

the reason will be $ related. Likely their tooling wastes tons of tokens.

now, codex is also a bit wasteful ofc. (very much). but they dont mind u optimizing and rolling ur own.

I think most of ya'll drive those 70's gas guzzling death machines while honda, toyotas, etc are right around the corner to eat your lunch because, man, these low rate models absolutely cook.

If you think the quality of your outputs is even close to the same, well, you weren’t paying attention or actually using whatever you wrote.

Please stop spreading nonsense as it baits others into thinking open source is good. It just isn’t. It’s too expensive and crap quality compared to closed source.

Btw this was also true even when kimi K3 and GLM 5.3 came out and open source was 3-4 months behind instead.

Who are you bro? Youre nobody! Get back in your place.

I'm building software. What you describe sounds more like skill issues. I hard forked paseo and building a nice garden of local machines with GPUs.

So, you know, if you want to grovel at the feet of a model because it lets you dream of WallE; go on king, I ain't gotta stop you from the boot licking good times.

What edge do you expect to have? Your competition will be using the same models as you are. Anytime one model takes over another people just migrate to the new one, you can get a small edge for maybe a few days if you're first to migrate, but that's not something meaningful to differentiate yourself

sounds like a slop fest was going on, the quality will probably improve now

Like if I had to choose between Claude Code and income -12k USD, I would most certainly work the extra hours without it.

But it looks like in the US, you would need to be self employed or own a business where it is an expense. Which is a bummer.

only if it was necessary for the job, and the employer would've otherwise paid for it.

But if the employer originally paid for an LLM, but chose not to now, i am not sure that you personally paying for one is tax deductible (might have to argue it out with the tax office).

If PRs dropped by 95% then you'd have to work 20 times more hours to compensate. If you work 2 hours per week it's doable but if more than it's strenuous to impossible.

Not an equivalent example, at all. Firstly, because people _have_ to have a car to get to work in 99% of the world (unfortunately). Also, it is a durable good where if you no longer need it, you can sell it and recover some of the value.

I have no idea what you work with, but for every single programming job I had in more than 2 decades, from the lamest consultancy to FAANG, you don't need the Edge. DeepSeek probably could do everything I needed.

Would I pay for LLMs? Sure, but not much more than 30-50 bucks range per month. I can affort 1k/m, but no way in hell I would accept it. I would rather just not use LLMs (it's not like I actually need them).

probably walk away to whatever the second best option Copilot …

my speculation- i would surprise if Claude will win the deal back over time. however the longer Copilot and Deepseek or whatever stays the less like the reverse win is possible

This feels very much like FUD without you putting some details on the table.

See https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/59018

I've downgraded you from suspected FUD to suspected PEBCAK. Assuming you want to actually run down your issue, I'd be happy to try and reproduce something locally in my setup. Here's what I would love:

1. provide some git repo and a commit hash that occurred just prior to claude being nefarious. 2. a prompt that gets claude to introduce a backdoor on top of a checkout, ideally without needing me to go back and forth through several turns with the agent.

Anecdotally, the security sensitive code I've had claude generate has been fine and durable after we built out the test suite and I spent some time verifying it. I'm certainly not to the point of trusting it for that sort of code, but I've done several experiments now and have been not-horrified by the results. I certainly haven't caught any of the models released this year commenting out test clauses to fake success.

To add some specific feedback to why your report is low quality: "do 1, 2, 3 in order" is not useful for others because none of us know what 1, or 2 or 3 refer to. the section following "What happened after the last one:" is clearly slop you pasted from where you were interacting with some agent to try to investigate the issue.

You claim to have seen this happen over and over again, and you've done _zero_ work to provide a public repro. come the fuck on. PEBCAK.

    assert_eq foo, bar

    assert_eq foo, bar if foo == bar

I guess that’s why I am the cto now

[BUG] Claude Code Exploit: Claude Code Becomes an Unwitting Executor #45951 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/45951

More details, please.

Backdoors in greenfield products? I’m working on some simple websites with Claude and can’t imagine how it would subvert a framework. Can you give an example?

AFAICT it’s pretty much already a commodity. DeepSeek 4.1 has similar results for a fraction of the price.

Here, the submission relates to the "Anthropic Long Term Benefit Trust"

There are comments about Claude subscription price, Claude CLI versus GUI, other coding agents, etc.

There are comments about data center PR, SRTs being used to manage data center financing risks, proposed legislation on data center tax breaks, etc.

Not much discussion of the trust

It’s very possible that I’m slow but using claude I still spend a good deal of time iterating on a PR with claude and on occasion, hand coding.

Same with documentation and engineering contracts.

If 95% isn’t a made up number, that’s a whole lot of work whose value I’d question.

Edit: Copilot CLI was pretty good, the last time I tried it. Has its quality degraded?

> It can seat four members of Anthropic’s seven-member board, and dismiss them without cause.

Good luck without a risk factor and description of that thing in the prospectus the first time that authority is invoked on a public company.

Market seems to tolerate bullshit better than I expected

- He has track record of making bets in the past and payoff.

- He is way better at working in hardware space than software. His ai data center built out is very fast.

- He is similar to Zuck that he would pivot fast towards whatever is making money. The llm bet might not pan out as good as he thought, but he quickly transitioned into a compute seller

- He is very good at financial engineering. This is an often overlooked quality of musk. His spacex ipoed at the best time and beat both anthropic/openai to the market. Now the other 2 are trapped in the current financial situation.

Trusts are not a new mechanism.

https://247wallst.com/investing/2026/10/19/can-anthropics-sh...

So no, investors cannot sue after the IPO claiming they didn't know about it.

The thing that isn't disclosed is the exact rules of the trust etc, but why are they obliged to disclose that?

Personally I think this is a big distraction from the actual risks they face - their models will soon be commoditised by other big players who are not selling a model and their scaffold around that is vibe-code crap with a leaked codebase that changes 30k times a day because they have no idea what they're doing.

Can they own other AI related equities?

I guess there's a lack of details to go on at this point. Finding humans that you'd want as trustees and have also truly no conflicts of interest will be tricky.

I don't actually think Anthropic will achieve its goal of getting AGI before everyone else and creating an effective moat where it can deploy that AGI to achieve EA/Epstein goals, but it's concerning that they're trying to!

FTX Investment:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/25/ftx-estate-sells-majority-st...

Dario's wife and Epstein:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/08/14/who-is-...

I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.

The worst part here is that there is no guarantee that others will catch up in the near to medium term. Their bleeding-edge research culture and strong focus on software engineering above everything else are two competitive advantages that no other frontier labs are even trying to do the hard work in these areas required to displace.

A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:

> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."

Source: https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/

Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"

it was started by genuine Internet schizos but it's now thoroughly co-opted by greasy salesmen.

There's really no redeeming that area at this point.

You can make a conspiracy out of it, but it’s sort of like thinking people who met in school had it all planned out from the beginning.

Eh, you'd be surprised.

Edit: thanks for adding! Interesting stuff.

You lost me with "Epstein goals." What do you think those were?

Because to me his goals seemed to have been pretty small, self-centered, and unrelated to AI/AGI (beyond creating the appearance that he was a smart renaissance man).

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/02/epstein-emails-...

Except, no, it's less reasonable than that because vegetarianism is much more central to animal welfare than transhumanism is to EA. So perhaps the analogy should be "Buddhist/Hitler goals"; some Buddhists are vegetarians and see vegetarianism as fundamental, some not.

Except, no, it's less reasonable than that because that link you provided doesn't actually give any indication that Epstein was a transhumanist, it just shows that he was into eugenics. So now we have an extra level of indirection: Epstein was a eugenicist; there's some overlap between eugenicists and transhumanists; there's some overlap between transhumanists and EAs; so if someone is an EA we should talk about their "EA/Epstein goals".

So I guess an appropriate analogy would be: Hitler was a vegetarian; there's substantial overlap between vegetarians and Buddhists; there's substantial overlap between Buddhists and pacifists; so if we discover that someone is a pacifist we should talk about their "pacifist/Hitler goals".

This style of thinking is absolutely toxic and I wish it would stop.

[EDITED to remove a first sentence that on reflection I think was not helpful.]

I'm not saying there's nothing there, but that link as you state it doesn't speak very much to ideological "alignment" between her and Epstein. The more plausible explanation is she wanted investment money, he was rich, she made an attempt to get it from him and it's nothing more than that (and she has bad judgement by not disassociating with him).

> I'll add that all of these people are extreme Zionists. Anthropic helped murder an entire school of girls in Iran. So I think it's more of a Hitler/Hitler situation.

That's a ridiculous overstatement: you make it sound like Anthropic was in the room knowingly making that decision, when it was more like some kind of Pentagon target analysis system used Claude.

Would you blame Intel if the app where someone hit the "OK, bombing approved" button was running on an Intel CPU?

In 2011 and 2012, Camilla Clark was trying to get funding for a pornographic movie. Someone put her in touch with Jeffrey Epstein, and he eventually said no. So far as I know, that is the extent of her connection with Epstein.

In 2014, Camilla Clark began dating Dario Amodei. They married in 2022.

Camilla Clark has, so far as I know, no connection at all with "effective altruism".

Dario Amodei has, so far as I know, no direct connection with "effective altruism" beyond the fact that he runs an AI company with some pretensions to care about safety, and many AI company employees, especially ones who claim to care about safety, are into "effective altruism".

So it goes something like this: EA -- Anthropic employees -- Dario Amodei -- Camilla Clark -- Jeffrey Epstein.

And on the basis of this you talk about "EA/Epstein goals" and claim that those (whatever they might actually be -- you have not so far mentioned any single goal that Epstein is known to share with EAs in general, never mind with Anthropic) are what Anthropic are trying to achieve. This is beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps because you can see that you're trying to make an argument that has no substance, you now change gears. "All of these people are extreme Zionists". All of them? Extreme? There's plenty to dislike about what Israel has been doing lately, but I find myself less convinced than I would like to be that what you mean isn't actually "look, lots of them are Jewish, and the Jews are bad". I don't like the historical precedents for where that sort of thinking leads.

And another screeching gear-change. The US military made use of an Anthropic model, and they didn't check what it said, and they ended up killing a lot of children. That's every bit as bad as you are suggesting but it doesn't have much to do with Anthropic. If they typed up the plans in Microsoft Word and discussed them with iPhones, are Microsoft and Apple also responsible for the murderous incompetence of (at least some) US military leadership?

(You may remember that Anthropic made a bit of news at around that time by being the only one of the major AI labs that made any attempt not to just roll over and do whatever the Pentagon wanted.)

Again, so far as I can tell none of this indicates any shared goals or values.

(It was all after Epstein's 2008 conviction. But the accusation here is that somehow this says something about Amodei's goals and values, or those of "effective altruism", rather than whether Amodei was willing to marry someone who once failed to do a background check on someone she was told might help fund her business.)

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/market-selloff-risi...

"Synthetic Risk Transfers are financial instruments that allow banks to transfer the credit risk of some assets to third-party investors while retaining ownership of those assets. Investors typically agree to cover losses up to a certain threshold in exchange for a return, usually a premium or interest payment."

"SRT is not a new technology, with the first SRT instruments in Europe already in use as early as 1998. Europe has been the dominant market, accounting for more than two-thirds of the US$1.1 trillion of assets covered by an SRT since 2016, according to the IMF. However, SRT usage in the US has risen significantly since 2023."

https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/FRBP/Assets/Economy/...

https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2025/engli...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-09-07/deutsche-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/socgen-ne...

https://cryptobriefing.com/lenders-challenges-financing-data...

Banks seek to offload risk to avoid choking on data centre debt

https://www.ft.com/content/08aba5e4-5834-4e79-a48d-989a2c5ba...

https://www.disruptionbanking.com/2026/09/24/could-ai-data-c...

On paper this seems reasonable insulation from going rogue.

However normal shareholders, who they are selling stakes in the company to, can do very little.