Is anyone keeping track of all these “partnerships” and “investments” in one place? This is all turning into a ton of what looks like PR fodder that appears to go nowhere.
This doesn't seem to be investment focussed activity, but rather extending Claude credits for education and research. Which is a good thing, independent of other bad things that might be happening.
Anthropic profits from the PR, for one. And they likely hook these institutions on their products in the long term, for two – much like I was "stuck" on Azure until recently, thanks to their free startup credits pointing me to it a decade ago.
There are ways one can engage in financial engineering (is "accounting engineering" a term yet?) where despite not making a profit, you segregate a tax break, tax credit, charitable deduction, etc. into some other entity and then can sell that off as an asset that some other business that is making a profit buys and writes off against its own profits.
Ed Zitron[1] has a lot of articles and podcast episodes on these deals. The nice thing about it is that he occasionally revisits the old announcements to check what happened with them. Apparently a lot of these deals just evaporate after prolonged contact with reality.
This stuff helps prevent the bubble popping, which means when they want the bubble to pop, they stop announcing these deals, giving them a great lever of profit.
Crazy how they can just lie to this extent without consequences. Or still get paid millions for making bad deals, meaning incompetence
Compared to the insanely circular deals that OpenAI made? I have slight more confidence in Anthropics partnerships honestly. This is the Gates foundation dropping 200 million for use of Claude for medical research, unlike OpenaAIs weird "we will buy stuff off you in the future" but I don't know that they actually ever have or did.
A lot of the recent news just makes me think much worse of Anthropic.
If you're going to partner with a charitable Gates, choose the good one (though to be fair, she's probably going to be far more discerning).
And Anthropic's decision to become complicit in poisoning Memphis with Grok's methane turbines already put the lie to the idea they are the conscientious ones when it comes to large AI companies.
He spent most of that effort undermining proven solutions and propping up his own investments which have a poor record so this is not out of character.
The helped easing up on the resources of Earth with his investment in certain pharma companies and now owns a giant amount of the farmland of the US too.
Any given year congress could pass something letting farmland owned before X date be passed to your children without taxes. I've seen lots of congressmen telling sob stories about a constituent losing the 8-figure family farm due to taxes. Gates owns the farmland personally, not in the foundation. But it could just be diversifying assets. Lots of tech billionaires buy up lots of land.
How are people out here defending these people like you have to have a totally depraved worldview to even think that these people should live in the same world as us
Do you have a better suggestion for eliminating the Epstein class?
Not the OP, but I suspect it's because of Bill Gates' recent scandals involving Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically with Bill Gates spiking his wife's food with antibiotics to cover up the fact that he got an STD from a Russian prostitute.
The "Melinda" bit already dropped? Why did she leave him? Great guy to do a partnership with the same-named foundations of.
I'll take the downvotes (just saw that _all_ posts that comment negatively on the foundation are well downvoted: I gave each of 'm an upvote just to counter all the AI bots on here, cause sure there are).
To explain: first, they did not pay proper taxes, in particular the older Evil here. But even more importantly, in the USA a foundation can own patents, among other things. They need to give out a certain % on a yearly basis, but basically it is a corporation.
The Gates Foundation has done measurably terrible work harming public education in the US.
They do good work on infection disease, vaccines, and childhood mortality in the world but this partnership speaks to the worst of what the foundation does. I hope someone there has some perspective for where they have wasted charitable funds and can use that insight here.
The line in the press release that matters isn't the $200M headline — it's
that the Foundation will use Claude across "global health, education, and
agricultural development" delivery work, not just research. That's
operational deployment, which means evaluation harnesses, deployment SLAs,
and prompt-caching strategy at scale across very heterogeneous use cases.
For reference: most enterprise commitments I've seen quoted near this range
are training + dedicated capacity + a research collab. This one reads more
like a multi-year managed-services contract attached to a delivery
organization. Whether it produces anything depends entirely on the
Foundation's eval-pipeline maturity — and historically large grant-making
orgs aren't fast at standing those up.
The prompt-cache-window joke up-thread actually hits the right structural
question: is $200M effectively the volume discount for committing 5-year
batched workloads, or is it new R&D dollars? The press release wording is
careful enough that I read it as the former.
They were a little late, but did have the dominant browser for most of the 2000's. To say they "missed the boat" is a bit much. There was a dark period from 1999 to 2004 or so where IE was basically the only usable browser.
Is anyone keeping track of all these “partnerships” and “investments” in one place? This is all turning into a ton of what looks like PR fodder that appears to go nowhere.
This doesn't seem to be investment focussed activity, but rather extending Claude credits for education and research. Which is a good thing, independent of other bad things that might be happening.
And a sizable tax deduction.
IANAA, but pretty sure you can only deduct a donation against business profit. Are you suggesting that Anthropic is running at a profit?
Who profits from that deduction and how?
Anthropic profits from the PR, for one. And they likely hook these institutions on their products in the long term, for two – much like I was "stuck" on Azure until recently, thanks to their free startup credits pointing me to it a decade ago.
One assumes Anthropic given it's them doing the donating, but you also have to be actually making a profit to be paying tax.
There are ways one can engage in financial engineering (is "accounting engineering" a term yet?) where despite not making a profit, you segregate a tax break, tax credit, charitable deduction, etc. into some other entity and then can sell that off as an asset that some other business that is making a profit buys and writes off against its own profits.
Ed Zitron[1] has a lot of articles and podcast episodes on these deals. The nice thing about it is that he occasionally revisits the old announcements to check what happened with them. Apparently a lot of these deals just evaporate after prolonged contact with reality.
[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/
This stuff helps prevent the bubble popping, which means when they want the bubble to pop, they stop announcing these deals, giving them a great lever of profit.
Crazy how they can just lie to this extent without consequences. Or still get paid millions for making bad deals, meaning incompetence
Compared to the insanely circular deals that OpenAI made? I have slight more confidence in Anthropics partnerships honestly. This is the Gates foundation dropping 200 million for use of Claude for medical research, unlike OpenaAIs weird "we will buy stuff off you in the future" but I don't know that they actually ever have or did.
A lot of the recent news just makes me think much worse of Anthropic.
If you're going to partner with a charitable Gates, choose the good one (though to be fair, she's probably going to be far more discerning).
And Anthropic's decision to become complicit in poisoning Memphis with Grok's methane turbines already put the lie to the idea they are the conscientious ones when it comes to large AI companies.
This is almost certainly gross. Don’t be evil, Anthropic.
Bill Gates, famous climate activist? Mmm.
He spent most of that effort undermining proven solutions and propping up his own investments which have a poor record so this is not out of character.
Let's also not forget his wife divorcing him over his Epstein partying.
The helped easing up on the resources of Earth with his investment in certain pharma companies and now owns a giant amount of the farmland of the US too.
> now owns a giant amount of the farmland of the US too.
What for though? I always hear this, but what's the point of it?
Any given year congress could pass something letting farmland owned before X date be passed to your children without taxes. I've seen lots of congressmen telling sob stories about a constituent losing the 8-figure family farm due to taxes. Gates owns the farmland personally, not in the foundation. But it could just be diversifying assets. Lots of tech billionaires buy up lots of land.
Don’t forget: friend of notorious pedophile jeffery epstein.
Not just friend
He actively abused trafficked women including non-consensually exposing his wife to an STI
These are the worst people on the planet and should be dissected while living and live-streamed as an example to others
> should be dissected while living
You sound like an exemplar citizen yourself /s
How are people out here defending these people like you have to have a totally depraved worldview to even think that these people should live in the same world as us
Do you have a better suggestion for eliminating the Epstein class?
Is that $200M with the prompt cache at five minutes, or one hour?
I'm a fan of Anthropic's product but this is incredibly tone deaf and makes me reconsider the judgement of their leadership.
Why?
Not the OP, but I suspect it's because of Bill Gates' recent scandals involving Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically with Bill Gates spiking his wife's food with antibiotics to cover up the fact that he got an STD from a Russian prostitute.
The gates foundation: money laundering and influence purchasing for billionaires who occasionally want to slip their wives antibiotics.
So... Does the Gates foundation get an equity stake?
An equity stake? Psh time for the Gates Foundation to become a normal for-profit AI company!
Pedos Foundation
Welp, time to make sure your triple F reserves are stocked up.
The "Melinda" bit already dropped? Why did she leave him? Great guy to do a partnership with the same-named foundations of.
I'll take the downvotes (just saw that _all_ posts that comment negatively on the foundation are well downvoted: I gave each of 'm an upvote just to counter all the AI bots on here, cause sure there are).
Evil & Evil unite.
To explain: first, they did not pay proper taxes, in particular the older Evil here. But even more importantly, in the USA a foundation can own patents, among other things. They need to give out a certain % on a yearly basis, but basically it is a corporation.
The Gates Foundation has done measurably terrible work harming public education in the US.
They do good work on infection disease, vaccines, and childhood mortality in the world but this partnership speaks to the worst of what the foundation does. I hope someone there has some perspective for where they have wasted charitable funds and can use that insight here.
The line in the press release that matters isn't the $200M headline — it's that the Foundation will use Claude across "global health, education, and agricultural development" delivery work, not just research. That's operational deployment, which means evaluation harnesses, deployment SLAs, and prompt-caching strategy at scale across very heterogeneous use cases.
For reference: most enterprise commitments I've seen quoted near this range are training + dedicated capacity + a research collab. This one reads more like a multi-year managed-services contract attached to a delivery organization. Whether it produces anything depends entirely on the Foundation's eval-pipeline maturity — and historically large grant-making orgs aren't fast at standing those up.
The prompt-cache-window joke up-thread actually hits the right structural question: is $200M effectively the volume discount for committing 5-year batched workloads, or is it new R&D dollars? The press release wording is careful enough that I read it as the former.
Gates missed the boat with the internet. This is not going to happen a second time!
They were a little late, but did have the dominant browser for most of the 2000's. To say they "missed the boat" is a bit much. There was a dark period from 1999 to 2004 or so where IE was basically the only usable browser.
… i’m still seeing a therapist about this time period.