←back to thread

Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

(www.nytimes.com)
989 points acomjean | 9 comments | 05 Sep 25 19:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
arjunchint ◴[05 Sep 25 20:49 UTC] No.45143425[source]▶
Wait so they raised all that money just to give it to publishers?

Can only imagine the pitch, yes please give us billions of dollars. We are going to make a huge investment like paying of our lawsuits.

replies(4): >>45143452 #>>45143457 #>>45143775 #>>45144538 #
Wowfunhappy ◴[05 Sep 25 20:53 UTC] No.45143457[source]▶
From the article:

> Although the payment is enormous, it is small compared with the amount of money that Anthropic has raised in recent years. This month, the start-up announced that it had agreed to a deal that brings an additional $13 billion into Anthropic’s coffers. The start-up has raised a total of more than $27 billion since its founding in 2021.

replies(3): >>45143668 #>>45143756 #>>45144099 #
1. dkdcio ◴[05 Sep 25 21:10 UTC] No.45143668[source]▶
maybe I’m bad at math but paying >5% of your capital raised for a single fine doesn’t seem great from a business perspective
replies(4): >>45143698 #>>45143757 #>>45144251 #>>45144662 #
2. siliconpotato ◴[05 Sep 25 21:14 UTC] No.45143698[source]▶
It's VC money, I don't think anyone believes it's real money
replies(2): >>45143716 #>>45144153 #
3. ◴[05 Sep 25 21:16 UTC] No.45143716[source]▶
4. bongodongobob ◴[05 Sep 25 21:21 UTC] No.45143757[source]▶
Yeah it does, cost of materials is way more than that if they were building something physical like a new widget or something. Same idea, they paid for their raw materials.
5. Aachen ◴[05 Sep 25 22:00 UTC] No.45144153[source]▶
If it weren't, why are we taking it as legal tender? I certainly wouldn't mind being paid in VC money
6. ryao ◴[05 Sep 25 22:11 UTC] No.45144251[source]▶
If it allowed them to move faster than their completion, I imagine management would consider it money well spent. They are expected to spend absurd amounts of money to get ahead. They were never expected to spend money efficiently if it meant taking additional months/years to get results.
replies(1): >>45144305 #
7. carstenhag ◴[05 Sep 25 22:18 UTC] No.45144305[source]▶
Someone here commented saying they claimed they did not even use it for training, so apparently it was useless.
replies(1): >>45149294 #
8. arrty88 ◴[05 Sep 25 22:56 UTC] No.45144662[source]▶
If they are going to be making Billions in net income every year going forward, as many years as analysts can make projections for, and using these works allowed them to GTM faster/quicker/gain advantage against competitors, then it is quite great from a business prospective.
9. ryao ◴[06 Sep 25 13:54 UTC] No.45149294{3}[source]▶
In that case, this was one of the most expensive no-ops in history.