Hacker News
points by _heimdall 4 days ago | 0 comments
If this is mostly competition enduced, I have to assume either their usage has plummeted or they will implode financially in short order.

The frontier labs were already burning money on more expensive price models, and competition wouldn't have reduced their capex proportionately.

[–] p0nce 4 days ago
How could they do anything but implode financially? Genuinely curious. The numbers are not right.
[–] smallmancontrov 4 days ago
Did the frontier labs take out debt or did they make flimsy unenforceable agreements to neoclouds who took out debt?
[–] bunderbunder 4 days ago
Borrowing money is not the only way to go into debt. They reportedly made binding and non-cancelable commitments. Once those commitments come due then they will be indebted to their counterparties until they pay up or the courts sort it out.

This is comparable to how, if I sign a 12 month non-cancelable lease and then don’t pay the rent, I will be in debt to my landlord.

[–] freakynit 4 days ago
People heavily underestimate the number of tricks available to corporates for taking on "debt": https://latentstate.net/the-hidden-ledger/
[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
That's effectively borrowing money with a different name though. The only way to go into debt is to sign an agreement to pay someone money in the future, regardless of the terms used to describe it.
[–] smallmancontrov 4 days ago
No, it's really not. Do you have a war chest to drag out a legal battle and the ability to bankrupt your landlord by withholding payment? The rules are different at this scale, and "you can't enforce a contract if the attempt will bankrupt you" is only one of the possible games.

Here's another one: pay a supplier to cripple their deployment. Suddenly it's the neocloud's fault for failing to deliver, not your fault for failing to pay.

Did we all forget how Sam Altman turned a non-profit into a for-profit? Do we think he'll bring less sociopathy to this battle?

[–] haldujai 4 days ago
> Do you have a war chest to drag out a legal battle and the ability to bankrupt your landlord

Their war chest is not sufficiently larger than the hyperscalers, Broadcom or PE financiers like BlackRock.

> The rules are different at this scale, and "you can't enforce a contract if the attempt will bankrupt you" is only one of the possible games.

Rather, the inverse of what you said and far less Machiavellian.

It is legally well established that take-or-pay contracts are unenforceable if it would bankrupt the buyer which is the more likely resolution in this case. However, this does not mean frontier labs just get to walk away. They would settle in court for a penalty that is less than the full contract price.

See: AMD/global foundries and pretty much every oil and gas or commodity deal that goes bust when market pricing makes extraction unfeasible.

[–] smallmancontrov 3 days ago
> Their war chest is not sufficiently larger

That's not the metric. The legal system is pay-for-delay, not pay-to-win. Once you have enough money to delay, it becomes a contest of who has the longer runway, and that probably goes to the frontier labs rather than the neoclouds who have little alternative revenue and comparatively airtight debt obligations.

> take-or-pay contracts are unenforceable if it would bankrupt the buyer which is the more likely resolution in this case. However, this does not mean frontier labs just get to walk away. They would settle in court for a penalty

Regardless, the terms come down to positioning and bargaining power. Runway vs obligations. This seems to dramatically favor the labs.

[–] haldujai 3 days ago
> it becomes a contest of who has the longer runway

Which is what I said - frontier labs do not have a sufficiently larger war chest.

Respectfully, comparing the balance sheets of a frontier lab to Blackrock, Apollo, Softbank or Nvidia is laughable.

The neocloud will also easily rent out that unused compute and keep funding their war chest via Nvidia’s backstop. If Nvidia can’t pay then it’s all over and AI companies have been swallowed by credit markets.

Your hypothesis also ignores the fact that if frontier labs are not paying for compute it is because they have bad revenue, little cash available and no credit (no one is loaning money to OAI or Anthropic if they can’t pay their bills. They can barely get debt today).

> Regardless, the terms come down to positioning and bargaining power. Runway vs obligations. This seems to dramatically favor the labs.

No, the only way out is for OpenAI or Anthropic to claim in court that they would be insolvent if they are required to pay the bill in full. Otherwise this is a straight forward deal.

You are greatly overestimating their capabilities and underestimating how many substantially more well-funded and highly liquid players will be lining up to take their pound of flesh if OAI or Anthropic default on a bill.

I’d wager my life savings one of those two will go through liquidation.

[–] InsidiousWombat 3 days ago
Does it matter if they "win" or "lose" legally ? They still don't have money to pay, so someone (probably people that gave them their debt in the first place, and their investors) will end holding the bag.
[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
The government could bail them out, that's the most likely scenario if they don't implode IMO.

They could also continue to grow at the rates they had last year. I don't know where those customers would come from, but if they did pull that off OpenAI and Anthropic could sustain propping up the circular financing going around the AI industry.

[–] xlayn 4 days ago
Goverment bailing they out will be using people tax to rescue the companies that absorbed most of the 801k money so they can get people out of work... it's the ultimate slap to the face... I would strongly resist this, I would vote if they implode to give to whoever owned shares via 801k their money, to people and let them (openai, anthropic, et al) eat shit... I would love to buy one of those gpus to run an open model at discount price...
[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
Completely agree it will be a huge slap in the face to the public, unfortunately that's a common solution.

When everyone is afraid the market will collapse, or more likely distracted because the market collapsed just enough to hurt the average person, the government will bail them out and either people won't notice or will welcome it as a solution to huge levels of fear.

Voting isn't usually much of a solution after the fact, the political machine doesn't allow for candidates that would fix anything to have a chance at any office that matters. There's a reason our politicians today all seem to have roughly the same goals and all seem to become extremely wealthy while in office.

[–] psd1 4 days ago
Government trying to manage financial markets is like trying to steer a rampaging rhino; finance is stronger than government, and can wreck it. But some politicians want to increase regulation and some want to reduce it. Some cynicism is fair, but you've overstated the case. Elections do not offer infinite choice, but the choices are distinct.
[–] InsidiousWombat 3 days ago
But why would they bail them out ? Stock value will drop regardless of what govt does and having the borrowers (the private companies that already made billions on selling the shovel) get stuck with the unclaimable debt is far better option, and those are not hiring average blue collar workers in hundreds of thousands so any job loss would be minuscule too
[–] _heimdall 3 days ago
For the same reason the government bailed out the banks, they're too big to fail.

Two companies account for most of the frontier R&D, and something like 7 companies account for a huge portion of growth in the stock market. The government, especially under Trump, is very focused on continuing to see those numbers go up.

I also expect the government is pretty bought in on AI being the future and on us being in a race with China. They'd have to bail out the labs for those reasons alone.

Lastly in my opinion, Trump has a pretty socialist bent to him and regularly talks about a sovereign wealth fund owning portions of companies. He'd love to have take a partial stake in AI companies, and a bail out is a great way to do that.

[–] velcrovan 4 days ago
A bailout would be a slap in the face when the correct solution is to nationalize them. If they are too big to fail then the government gets a controlling share of equity and we finally start the sovereign wealth fund we should have started decades ago.
[–] _heimdall 3 days ago
Nationalization is fundamentally different from a bailout. It tends to go poorly when a government begins taking over the means of production.

Though I agree with you a bailout is a slap in the face. In my opinion bailouts shouldn't be legal, governments should pro actively be making sure individual corporations don't become so large that a failure would wreck the economy or national security.

[–] _heimdall 3 days ago
Why is it you see a sovereign wealth fund as the right answer? Why should the sovereign own the means of production, and why should the people creating and enforcing laws be the same as those in charge of our economic future?
[–] wtch98 4 days ago
How does that work when the official strategy is "Socialise the losses, privatise the profits"
[–] fourthark 4 days ago
Maybe you should try voting harder.
[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
Meaning what? Cast more than one ballot?

I live in a state that votes heavily in one direction, most states are the same. Its fine for me to vote, but the winner of a majority of states is pretty well decided before a ballot is cast (by strong majority, I'm not claiming fraud).

[–] daveguy 4 days ago
If everyone who threw up their hands actually voted, the outcome would change. See also, the elections musk tried to buy in the last 18 months or so since he doged up the place.
[–] easyThrowaway 4 days ago
Becoming "too big to fail" has become a viable market strategy.

See also how AI companies re trying to sneak in basically every level of infrastructure and public administration.

[–] rayiner 4 days ago
Apple is worth more than all the AI companies combined. You think LLMs are less valuable in the global market than slightly updated iPhone models every year?
[–] failbuffer 4 days ago
LLMs? No. LLM companies? Yes. It's just math, data centers, and mass copyright infringement. The only scarcity is Nvidia, who just passed Apple in market cap, somewhat proving your point but not in the way you meant it.
[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
If you consider Nvidia an LLM company, and I do at this point given how heavily they've invested in frontier labs and where much of their revenue comes from, they alone are worth slightly more than Apple.
[–] hvb2 4 days ago
But nvidia can sell to anyone, right?

They'll take a heavy hit stock wise, and might be an LLM company through all their shady financial constructions to keep the music going by propping up demand. But in the end, nvidia as a company has a place even when the frontier labs go bankrupt. Some other company will take their place. Worst case it'll be like the cable companies in the end 90s who found themselves out of work because they overbuilt for dotcom

[–] phoghed 4 days ago
> It's just math, data centers, and mass copyright infringement.

Ok then iPhones are just metal, plastic, glass, and a delivery truck. You are just electric meat. This has to be one of the dumber comments I’ve read on here.

[–] jasomill 4 days ago
Maybe not, but it is probably less likely that Apple will face stiff competition from freely available alternatives, given that AOSP has been a thing for the iPhone’s entire lifespan and nonproprietary Android phones have failed to capture significant market share.
[–] daveguy 4 days ago
I don't think we have seen an Apple of AI yet. I wouldn't describe the frontier that way, would you?
[–] jasomill 4 days ago
No, and moreover it’s not entirely inconceivable that the Apple of AI may turn out to be Apple itself.
[–] Danox 3 days ago
For that to happen Apple Silicon needs to continue to move forward and memory needs to move in-house along with local on-device AI agents.
[–] surajrmal 4 days ago
Are you avoiding Google and SpaceX in that math?
[–] InsidiousWombat 3 days ago
Neither's only business is LLM

And SpaceX LLM business is "we failed to build competition so we just rent what we bought in hardware to other companies"

[–] jasomill 4 days ago
Their costs could drop, competition could dry up, or they may only be unprofitable in the first place because they’re choosing to invest more money in growing their business than they’re currently making, a practice which need not and will not continue indefinitely.

It’s not at all unusual for companies to run at a loss for several years before turning a profit.

[–] SlightlyLeftPad 4 days ago
Stuff like this that defies all logic happens all the time. Amazon operated at a massive loss first it’s first decade and still IPO’d years before they posted a profit.
[–] disgruntledphd2 4 days ago
Amazon were investing in goods that lasted longer. It's an open question how long the GPUs will be worth anything, and training costs are the real killer.

Z.ai, who make GLM are public and their books are really, really, really bad.

[–] dnautics 3 days ago
Did you read the anthropic S1 or are you just saying this?
[–] kshacker 4 days ago
That's why Anthropic are rushing the IPO. You can explain a single quarter slowdown, you can not explain a multi quarter one.
[–] stingraycharles 4 days ago
What makes you say that Anthropic has multi quarter slowdowns?
[–] kshacker 4 days ago
I am technically not saying that. I am taking off from the parent comment and speculating.

Their data from September is leaked via IPO preview, and October is not yet complete, so how can someone even project that?

// I am a techie, not a finance guy, so apart from public chatter, no inside knowledge.

And I do feel their IPO is being rushed before anyone has enough information to make up their mind. The VCs or private equity have given them a lot of money and want to cash out. When the revenue does slow down, any investor should pause to take a look at whether they can right the ship, or has the landscape itself changed.

[–] eeedda 4 days ago
Have more confidence - you are correct.

Their revenue taps, product releases and marketing campaigns were all strategic: to be able to show nice numbers in the financials.

Once they stop playing games with quality of output of these models and revenue's shrink - they will be in deep deep trouble. They are hoping they will conjure up a break through with the IPO proceeds.

Let's see.

[–] flowerthoughts 4 days ago
My reason is their revenue chart is flattening.

https://techstartups.com/2026/10/15/anthropics-q3-revenue-hi...

[–] Gareth321 4 days ago
The flattening part is not reported, but based on estimates from a company called TickerTrends. If they were correct it would imply a sudden and unusual departure from some incredibly impressive growth. Even more unusual given the release of their industry leading Opus/Sonnet/Haiku. Something to watch but I would not consider that authoritative, and would not invest based on that either.
[–] InsidiousWombat 3 days ago
Opem models catching up in capabilities to do more and more tasks would easily explain it, there is a reason OpenRouter got sold for 7.5 bil, the money is in selling shovels and price per token, not chasing the frontier
[–] psd1 4 days ago
The impressive growth is plausible, but it also rhymes with "bubble". There is obviously a value proposition in there, but I'm skeptical it's a trillion-dollar one. It's a machine for turning electricity and silicon into powerpoint and spotify slop
[–] Gareth321 4 days ago
I partly agree. In support of your scepticism, I also think the frontier labs are overvalued. The expensive part which is not currently priced into the subscriptions is the training. Inference is usually profitable now - at least from what we can tell from industry reports.

Where this bubble differs from the dot-com bubble is that valuations have very strong, organic user demand behind them. In 1999, prototype websites with few customers were getting IPOs worth hundreds of millions. This time, demand is insatiable. Frontier mdoels also has very low global penetration, relatively speaking, so the TAM permits exponentially more sales, in theory.

However the risks are numerous for these labs. Foremost is that Chinese labs are able to easily distill frontier models. A tiny fraction of the cost of training, and they have a close approximation. Second, models are getting much more efficient per task. Companies are already discovering what "good enough" looks like, and it often ends up being much cheaper than what Anthropic and OpenAI are selling. This will only accelerate.

My investment thesis is bullish on the entire AI stack except the frontier labs. I think power generation is going to see huge demand. Ditto for infrastructure and data centers. Ditto for the products and services created by these models.

[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
I don't have the numbers in front of me but could have sworn I had seen quarterly revenue growth rates dropping drastically over the last year or so. Still a strong growth rate, but much lower than prior growth rates.

Edit: Data because silent down votes are useless, Anthropic Q2 2026 grew 147% while Q3 grew 45%

[–] eeedda 4 days ago
Yes but its growth rates with respect to expenditures, and in particular capital expenditures (R&D etc), which we have no idea about.

Gross margins here are irrelevant: if they can't charge a high enough price to cover all expenditures and rely on cash raised via fund-raises, they are not financially healthy.

Could they be one day? Maybe.

[–] _heimdall 4 days ago
I think we agree in a backwards kind of way.

Yes they do need to grow margins to cover expenses, eventually when Amazon had to turn a profit.

My point was only that the numbers we do know clearly show a drop in growth rate of revenue, I can't judge numbers that aren't publicly known.

[–] TacticalCoder 4 days ago
> If this is mostly competition enduced, I have to assume either their usage has plummeted or they will implode financially in short order.

If we assume it's due to competition, then their usage has precisely not plummeted because they cut prices by 80%.

[–] otabdeveloper4 4 days ago
> or they will implode financially

They are too big to implode.