Anthropic投资者会议聚焦Q3营收与代币经济模型

Let's start with Jensen. I'm curious. Do you have a takeaway there? Yeah, I do. I mean, not to be disparaging of the interview, but, you know, he answered the question he was asked, which is if a customer was using, uh, Nvidia's technology, which is the underlying compute for both training and running models to do something. It was bad. Would you take them away? And his answer was, well, that is a hypothetical. But yes, if they were doing something bad and you know, what he goes on to talk about is that that's not how it works, right?

You know, I think that what's been amazing to track Nvidia so closely over a long period of years is that it was never Nvidia. Selling directly to the world is never work like that. Basically Nvidia sold this technology through companies like Dell. So you would go out and buy a server and you would do that business with Dell, but you wouldn't be like, hey Jensen, I need like 100,000 GPUs. Stop. It's just not how the industry was developed.

Right. But it's kind of become that way. And so that's what he was asked. He was asked if you had a customer, a big user of your compute platforms who was doing something bad, would you take them away? And his answer was like, of course we would. But that's not how those technology companies are set up. Okay, what about China? Uh, okay. Because my goodness. That's the real question, right? Like. Wouldn't that be a good example of a country that a lot of people argue is an adversary when it comes to this technology?

Yet investors want Nvidia to sell its products to China? Yeah, I mean, we're talking specifically in China in the context of GPU access, right? Not as opposed to the models. So look, um, there is a range of views held by this administration and by industry in this country, which is at one extreme, we shouldn't send any, uh, chips to China, no matter how, um, deprecated they are versus the cutting edge or whether we do send the cutting edge.

There is that school of thought. And at the other end, it was like, if you don't send American technology to China, then they will come up with their own, and then they will start exporting their own technology to the gap in between, which is other markets, including the US, but that's distinct from the current export controls that this administration put in place and built upon from the Biden administration. Those export controls were designed to stop China having access to cutting edge chips, out of the concern that would use them to develop AI in the military context, not as an economic adversary.

Slightly distinct and separate arguments. But there is there is a difference between economic opportunity, school of thought. That's like what happens if we don't sell our best tech to China? And there is the what happens if we did give them our best tech? How would they use that in a way that was counter to the safety and interests of this nation? Hey, listen, before we wrap up with you, anthropic, uh, there investors meeting, what are we going to find out realistically here today?

And I know yeah, I think already kind of on edge about the AI trade right now. Again, I mean, so the reporting is that there is an investor meeting happening here in San Francisco. And I think like a lot of of what people want to understand is the real financials, right? Real revenues from the third quarter, which is the period ending September, or an updated revenue room rates or revenue run rate as of July was 65 billion.

That is, if I'm kept booking revenue at this pace for the next 12 months, they'd end up with $65 billion of revenue. And the next slide beyond that is that if you are a student of what anthropic is doing with its products right now, they've dropped prices, token prices really significantly of late. What does it cost them to produce a token relative to what they charge? And that then spits out what the bottom line looks like for this company.

Um, and the last thing I'd point out is they have a lot of money on their balance sheet. So we're waiting for this massive IPO. But don't forget that they raised like tens and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars earlier in the year privately. How much? That's still there to produce a token. Well, so so this is the thing I've been posting about this on X and like, I don't want to go through all the numbers, but it's basically halved.

Um, what anthropic charges for any given model from the summer until about last week when they did high Q 5.5 and the least various on it, they cut token prices. In other words, a dollar per million input tokens dollar for many output tokens. But at the same time we don't know how much it cost Central Park in terms of running compute to generate the tokens. The numbers I gave you where it what it charges customers. And so that's what all the analysts investors want a model for, like the economics of the entire business, that the biggest IPO in history so far probably is going to be predicated on.

And that's fun. Um, but you need some data to, to inform that data would help here. Uh, we want to know more, or at least that we always learn a lot with you. Uh, Bloomberg tech Ketchum, Monday through Friday at 11 a.m.. Wall Street time on Bloomberg. Let's, uh, stay with I. Yeah. We promised with you a deep dive here. I want to bring in Jacqueline Cavalli, CEO of the interactive TV ad platform Bright Line. She's also advised global leaders on IE policy, including at the UN and in the Vatican, and is heading to meet with King Charles of England to discuss policy next month.

She joins us here in the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio. Welcome, welcome. Okay. To be here. What are these leaders asking you when you meet with them? They're asking for perspective. Look, I think one of the things that stands out when you're in, when you're advising global leaders is the, you know, the ability to think in practical terms and pragmatic terms, um, about the change ahead and what is required from a policy standpoint now, and give them something that they can reflect on as they really, for the most part these days, struggle, um, to develop policies that balance the in a in the in the case of I balance out the security issues with with the with the potential for progress and commercial upside, it's not an easy thing for them.

Um, there are a lot of people analyzing these things. It's a question of how to synthesize it. My role is really to bring in the sort of practical, on the ground experience. Mhm. Um, the sort of real life considerations and uh, yeah, it's a, it's a, it's a privilege to do it. Your work though, you know, with the Vatican really kind of caught our attention, as you know, um, in our planning for this, our team, The New York Times recently wrote about how religious scholars have been meeting with anthropic and that for months.

Anthropic. This is, again from The New York Times, has been hosting private meetings, shuttling in dozens of religious scholars from across the world, papering them with non-disclosure agreements, and demanding that key aspects of many conversations remain confidential. Um, but they're talking about stuff. Um, what is it that and I know you probably can't reveal too much, but curious about that component and what is probably one of the biggest debates and technological disruptions of of our time?

Yeah, I mean, I think at the center of all of that is this idea, a couple things, really, that are all rooted in the same thing. It's it's humanity per se, um, human agency, uh, what is it going to mean to the dignity of people? Uh, and money always clouds. Sometimes those. So how do we how do we reconcile it? If you're you're dealing with leaders who are thinking about. We think about it too. If you're public every quarter, we're going to be looking at your financial strength, you know, and then there's like the heart and what you maybe should be doing.

Morality. Yeah. Which, uh, which investors don't care about, which investors don't care ab