Except that I'm not on the opposite side of the road. I've simply pointed out that the mechanics by which Anthropic could be viable long-term are pretty simple; not that this is what is going to happen.

Frankly, I don't think anyone can predict what will happen. This is a fast-moving, complicated stew of technology, finance and politics.

> My whole point is that this is unclear. Anthropic's S-1 mentioned how much that they paid for compute, but the rate they pay is totally opaque.

> If they pay near the market price this is a nothingburger. If they pay, say, half the market price, now we can see their already eye-watering training costs increase significantly and their high profit margins to suddenly not look as seductive anymore.

Pricing in commercial agreements is typically considered competitively sensitive and can be redacted from contracts filed with the SEC but only if it isn't material. Anthropic still has to disclose known trends that are likely to affect its results so if below-market compute were inflating its margins you'd expect to see that in the S-1.

The more detailed related-party disclosures probably aren't required yet because Amazon and Google mostly hold non-voting preferred stock and convertible notes. The S-1 says they'll each hold more than 5% after the IPO conversions. At that point, their transactions with Anthropic fall under the related-party rules so we'll learn a lot more after the IPO if there are any "issues" there.