A bolsa de Nova York fechou em alta nesta segunda-feira (26) à medida que os fabricantes de semicondutores se recuperaram após o pedido de IPO da Anthropic reviver o entusiasmo pelo comércio de IA (Inteligência Artificial).

O Dow Jones subiu 0,29%, aos 52.364,02 pontos. O S&P 500 avançou 0,7%, a 7.676,84 pontos. Já o Nasdaq encerrou em alta de 0,82%, nos 26.169,38 pontos.

O Nasdaq teve destaque positivo, com as ações de chips e outras relacionadas à IA subindo depois que a Anthropic apresentou publicamente seu pedido de IPO.

A empresa que desenvolveu o Claude relatou US$ 16,29 bilhões em receita para os seis meses encerrados em junho, um aumento de 1.304% em relação a US$ 1,16 bilhão durante o mesmo período do ano anterior.

Outras manchetes importantes de IA contribuíram para o sentimento de risco. A Meta informou nesta segunda que está planejando levantar US$ 95 bilhões para apoiar seus investimentos em IA.

O CEO da SpaceX, Elon Musk, disse no fim de semana que a empresa de satélites e lançamentos de foguetes fechou um acordo de dívida de US$ 40 bilhões para chips de IA.

Para analistas do Charles Schwab, os resultados podem fornecer mais evidências sobre se o investimento em IA valeu a pena após sinais positivos no segundo trimestre.

Prompt CNN: IA geral promete ser tão inteligente quanto humanos | FECHAMENTO DE MERCADO

“O comércio de IA está entrando em uma fase mais exigente, com investidores examinando se os retornos futuros justificam os crescentes compromissos de capital”, afirmam.

Os semicondutores se recuperaram, com o fundo iShares Semiconductor marcando alta de mais de 2%. As ações da Nvidia subiram 2,4%, a Micron aumentou 3%, a Broadcom ganhou 2,33% e a Advanced Micro Devices saltou 2,8%.

Já as ações da Moderna caíam 0,6% ampliando a desvalorização registrada na semana passada, após os resultados de um estudo sobre uma vacina contra o câncer ficarem abaixo das expectativas dos investidores.

Veja empregos que ganham e perdem com a inteligência artificial

A Authentic Brands Group, organização que detém os direitos autorais e de imagem de Elvis Presley, acusa a Anthropic de usar 274 canções do cantor para treinar a inteligência artificial da empresa.

A instituição, a editora musical Raleigh Music Publishing, vários fundos patrimoniais e pelo menos uma pessoa física abriram um processo contra a desenvolvedora.

A ação, protocolado na Califórnia, não é a primeira contra uma companhia de IA. Gravadoras como Sony, Warner Records e Universal, e a Recording Industry Association of America, associação que representa a indústria fonográfica nos Estados Unidos, já abriram processos semelhantes, acusando empresas do setor de violação de direitos autorais.

No documento da ação, aberta na sexta-feira (23), o advogado Richard Busch alega que o Claude, principalmente modelo da Anthropic, foi projetado para usar conteúdo protegido por direitos autorais e gerar conteúdo que infringe esses direitos em “praticamente todas as músicas de todos os catálogos disponíveis na internet”.

“Os autores da ação judicial, que representam Elvis, movem este processo para fazer valer esses direitos exclusivos contra o réu, que construiu todo o seu modelo de negócios com base na violação de direitos autorais em uma escala nunca vista antes”, escreveu Busch no documento.

O processo acusa a Anthropic de utilizar 274 canções de Elvis Presley, incluindo “Can’t Help Falling in Love” e “All Shook Up”. Os detentores dos direitos pedem indenização de US$ 150 mil por faixa violada, ou cerca de US$ 41 milhões.

A ação ainda afirma que, mesmo com mecanismos de proteção para limitar a produção de conteúdos que violam direitos autorais, a Anthropic teria se envolvido “conscientemente” e continuaria a se envolver intencionalmente nesse tipo de violação.

Isso porque grandes modelos de linguagem, como o Claude, são treinados com dados disponíveis na internet. No caso das músicas, a IA aprende sons, letras e expressões que já existem para, em seguida, gerar suas próprias canções.

Em comunicado, a Anthropic afirmou que discorda das acusações e pretende se defender no processo.

Prompt CNN: Anthropic monta laboratório de biologia com IA | FECHAMENTO DE MERCADO

• The feds seized Anthropic shares last year from Sam Bankman-Fried's associates.
• Several months later, the government sold them for $627 million.
• If Anthropic IPO'd in November at $1.5 trillion, those shares would be worth nearly $4 billion.

Last year, the federal government made a windfall of $627 million when it sold Anthropic shares it had seized from associates of crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried.

If it had held on to that stake, its windfall could have been a lot bigger.

The federal government last year sold shares of Anthropic that had belonged to Caroline Ellison and Nishad Singh, two co-conspirators in the FTX fraud case. The proceeds went to compensate victims of the fraud, a Justice Department spokesperson told Business Insider.

Anthropic's S-1 filing on Monday revealed how much the federal government made from the sale of those shares. The prospectus doesn't name Ellison and Singh specifically. It says the government in October 2025 sold 4,453,900 Series B shares of Anthropic that "had been forfeited by former holders in legal proceedings to which we were not a party."

The figure matches up exactly with the combined $50 million in shares that Singh and Ellison purchased for $11.2261 each in Anthropic's 2022 fundraising round, and later forfeited to the government.

The shares represent about a quarter of a percent of Anthropic today. But given the company's explosive growth, they are still worth a fortune.

Anthropic hasn't yet announced the stock price for its expected November initial public offering. At a $1.5 trillion valuation, the shares would be worth a total of about $3.94 billion. That would be six times as much as the government sold the shares for a year ago.

"One of the Justice Department's top priorities is returning forfeited funds to victims through the asset forfeiture program whenever the law allows," the DOJ spokesperson said.

The feds' stake in Anthropic

How the federal government came to own a chunk of Anthropic in the first place is a story involving a notorious fraudster and a complicated criminal forfeiture process.

Bankman-Fried participated in Anthropic's 2022 Series B fundraising round with Singh and Ellison. Singh purchased $40 million of the Series B shares, and Ellison acquired $10 million.

Singh and Ellison later pleaded guilty to crimes related to their work with Bankman-Fried and testified against him at his Manhattan federal criminal trial. The jury found Bankman-Fried guilty, and a judge sentenced him to 25 years in prison. The federal government took ownership of Singh's and Ellison's Anthropic shares by April 2025.

The US Marshals Service sold Singh's and Ellison's shares, rather than hold on to the red-hot Anthropic stock, Business Insider previously reported. The US Marshals Service Complex Assets Unit is typically tasked with dispensing shares of private companies acquired through criminal forfeiture.

Now we know that Anthropic purchased the stock from the feds in October 2025 at the price of $140.9676 per share, which is the same price Anthropic set for its Series F-1 stock in a fundraising round a month earlier.

Anthropic resold the shares to nine investors at the same $627 million total price it paid to purchase them from the federal government, so it didn't make a profit from the sale, according to the S-1 filing. It's not clear which nine investors purchased the shares originally owned by Singh and Ellison. Representatives for the US Marshals Service didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Anthropic shares owned by Ellison and Singh took a different path than the $500 million in Series B shares owned by Bankman-Fried himself. His shares ended up as part of FTX's bankruptcy estate, which sold them in 2024 to a few dozen buyers for a total of $1.3 billion.

The federal government sent the proceeds from the sale of Ellison's and Singh's shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, the Justice Department spokesperson said. Bankruptcy court filings show that the Justice Department transferred $638 million to the bankruptcy estate in late 2025.

The money has gone to repaying creditors, including FTX customers and investors who were scammed by the former crypto wunderkind.

Update: October 26, 2026 — This story has been updated to include a comment from the Justice Department.

Correction: October 27, 2026 — The federal government transferred the proceeds of the sale of Caroline Ellison's and Nishad Singh's Anthropic shares to the FTX bankruptcy estate, according to a DOJ spokesperson. An earlier version of this story misstated whether the funds had been transferred.

• I set out to see if Anthropic used Claude to draft its S-1 paperwork.
• The filing is, according to the AI detector tool Pangram, 92% human-written.
• Is that a good or bad thing? I'm not even sure!

Anthropic's much-awaited S-1 filing landed today, revealing all sorts of interesting things about the company's plans and current finances.

But the biggest question I had wasn't "does Anthropic think that accidentally destroying humanity is a business risk?" (yes) or "how much money are they losing?" (lots) or "does it feel weird to be part of the 50% of employees who don't do the pledge to donate some of their equity for the greater good?" (still wondering — if this is you, let me know).

My question was: Did they use AI to write this thing?

To find out, I ran the whole 335-page S-1 filing through Pangram, a service that checks for signs of AI-writing. Ok, well technically I tried to run it through myself, but ran into some problems with such a massive file. I reached out to Pangram CEO and cofounder Max Spero, and he ran the full file for me.

(I also reached out to Anthropic for comment about the tool's results. I haven't heard back — I suspect it's a busy day for them.)

And before you ask me why I didn't use Anthropic's official AI watermarking system to check, it's not available to normies yet.

Here's what Pangram's result was for the full 259,031 words on the S-1 filing:

Well, well, well!

So there was a tiny bit of AI use, per Pangram. It flagged some sentences and passages it said with a "high" degree of confidence contained AI use, things like: "The pace of AI development is extremely rapid, with successive versions of models emerging in compressed timeframes, often measured in months rather than years."

"My read on a result like this is that it indicates light AI editing or AI usage at the sentence level," Spero told me. "It does not seem like any significant sections of the document are fully AI-generated."

This is one of the limitations of something like Pangram, which isn't 100% perfect, and the way that people use AI tools these days for editing and proofreading might affect results.

My colleague Aki Ito ran all her LinkedIn posts and published articles here on Business Insider through Pangram as an experiment, and ended up with a tiny surprise: one sentence in one article was flagged as AI-written. When she looked back at it, she saw that ChatGPT had suggested she rephrase her original, human-written sentence, and she accepted the new wording. (I use Grammarly, an AI-powered grammar tool that mainly helps with my repeated crimes against commas, but occasionally suggests rewording, which I sometimes accept and sometimes reject, though I worry that this may get flagged as AI).

So it would appear Anthropic still had real humans — slow, expensive, fallible meatsacks — write this massive document, with just a little assist from Claude in the editing. That might be par for the course these days for IPO teams and S-1's, or at the very least the S-1's for literal AI companies. (If you're a banker who works on S-1s, shoot me an email!)

I can't tell if I think this is a good sign or a bad sign for Anthropic (and the world)?

On one hand, shouldn't Anthropic be eating its own dog food, so to speak, and proudly use its own AI for something like this? An S-1 filing is full of the kind of boilerplate, charmless, technical-ish writing that you'd assume AI would be perfect to replace a human for. If Anthropic is going to the hassle of having real (presumably highly paid humans) write out each of the 250,000+ words here, well, where is its faith in its own product? I you can't trust Claude to write your S-1, can you trust it to cure cancer?

On the other hand, thank god this isn't 100% AI-written. The stakes are pretty high when the SEC is poring over every word. If you're going to tell people your company is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, at least have a human show up and type it out, eh?

I guess bankers everywhere can breathe a sigh of relief.

• Spark Capital is mentioned more than 50 times in Anthropic's S-1 filing, released Monday.
• The reason Spark gets the most mentions is because partner Yasmin Razavi has a board seat.
• Spark led the $450 million Series C round at a $4.5 billion valuation in May 2023.

Spark Capital's Yasmin Razavi has a reputation for refusing to make gut calls. Her methodical decision to invest in Anthropic is now set to generate one of the biggest fortunes in Silicon Valley history, as Anthropic prepares to IPO.

Many venture firms, including Lightspeed and Menlo Ventures, are major Anthropic investors, but Spark is the only traditional VC firm named in the filing. And it's not just a few mentions. Spark is named more than 50 times.

The reason Spark gets the most ink is because Yasmin Razavi has a board seat after being the first institutional investor in the company, leading the $450 million Series C at a $4.5 billion valuation in May 2023.

This was just six months after ChatGPT was released to the public, and the jury was out on whether a rival like Anthropic could catch up. Many balked at the price, calling it too expensive.

"It was a big leap of faith, but this was the team that built GPT-3," Razavi told Forbes.

The filing says that Spark has invested $777 million in Anthropic across six financings since then, including $75 million in the first pivotal round at $11.22 per share.

Spark was already known for making early bets on Postmates and Discord, but it was the Anthropic investment that transformed the firm's Silicon Valley reputation from a good venture firm to a great one.

Razavi said she has been continuously wowed by CEO Dario Amodei.

"Every year, he puts out outrageous numbers, but somehow they magically become true," Razavi told Forbes. "Dario never misses."

Soon, Amodei will face a greater test: the public markets.

Please send along your tips. Email Ben or Katie anytime or contact them on Signal at benbergman.11 and kroof.26. Sign up for Business Insider's weekly VC Insider newsletter here.

On Wall Street, the question is no longer how much artificial intelligence will grow, but who will foot the bill. After years of market domination, tech companies have stopped being a safe bet, and the time has come to pick carefully, identifying which ones are going to fall prey to their own pharaonic investment plans and which ones are not.

Seguir leyendo

• Public investors are finally getting a chance to invest in Anthropic.
• But unlike other public companies, Anthropic doesn't want the public's input when it comes to major decisions.
• Instead, Anthropic will be effectively controlled by CEO Dario Amodei and a group of other insiders.

In the next few weeks, public investors will get their chance to buy a piece of Anthropic.

But regular investors will never have a chance to steer the AI giant's decisions: Even though Anthropic is going public, it will essentially remain a private company, controlled by a handful of people with outsized power.

That's not unusual for giant tech companies launched in the past few decades (Larry Page and Sergey Brin have effective control of Google; Mark Zuckerberg has the same at Meta, as does Elon Musk at SpaceX.) It's also something you see at some prominent media companies (Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan have effective control of his two public companies; Larry and David Ellison have the same at Skydance.)

Anthropic's twist on the idea is that control is split between two different groups of insiders. There's a clique of seven founders, including CEO Dario Amodei and his sister, Daniela, who control 50.1% of shareholder voting power. And there's also a trust with the power to appoint four of the company's seven directors.

Put those two together, and you get a corporate constitution designed to keep public investors outside the real decisions. The founders control the outcome of any shareholder vote; the trust controls the board.

In theory, those two groups could end up in conflict on major issues. The trust-appointed directors might, say, vote to replace Amodei with a new CEO. Or the founder group could veto a sale approved by the board.

In reality, there's a lot of overlap between the two groups. For starters, Anthropic created and funds the trust. And Anthropic itself says it has made sure the trust is staffed with people who see the world the same way its executives do: "In practice to date, the Trustees and company executives have collaborated closely on sourcing, interviewing, and selecting Trustees," the company notes in its S-1 filing.

The main takeaway is that there's no way for an individual shareholder, or even institutional shareholders who own significant chunks of Anthropic's equity, to force it to move one way or another.

The upside of arrangements like this are pretty clear, from a founder's perspective: They insulate their founders and managers from investors who might only care about short-term goals.

The downside: These structures insulate founders and managers from investors who might have very good reasons to want the company to change.

A good counter-example to the trend is Twitter, which went public in 2013 without founder control — which is why Elon Musk was able to buy it nearly a decade later.

In Anthropic's case, that aversion to giving public investors a real voice is synced directly to the company's founding thesis — that the AI it is developing is so consequential and potentially dangerous, that it must be controlled by people who care about more than Anthropic's share price.

And for many investors clamoring to get in on Anthropic's IPO, that lack of control — disclosed up front — won't matter. They just want their shares to be worth more over time. Musk's ironclad control of SpaceX didn't put dampen demand for the biggest IPO in history.

But if investors ever want to force Anthropic to do something the Amodeis and their cofounders — or the Anthropic-created trust — don't want it to do, they'll be out of luck. Buyer beware.

• Anthropic filed its S-1 on Monday, revealing the company's internal financials.
• Investors, researchers, and tech onlookers shared their thoughts.
• Some applied S-1 learnings to their own industries, like startups and venture capital.

Anthropic is ready to IPO. Analysts and onlookers are weighing in.

On Monday, the AI lab filed its hotly anticipated S-1 paperwork. The prospectus offered an inside look at Anthropic's financials: a net loss of about $42 billion in 2025 and revenue of $4.6 billion. It plans to trade under the ticker symbol ANT.

The S-1 sets the stage for a blockbuster IPO. Here's what smart people are saying about Anthropic's filing:

Sarah Guo, founder of Conviction

Venture capitalist Sarah Guo opened her X post with a big "CONGRATS" to Anthropic on the S-1 filing.

Guo shared her first takeaways: the inflection in operating profit, the focus on novel discovery, the mismatch between consumption-based revenue and long-term compute obligations, and more.

"I am curious to see how 1) a company with strong mission changes - or doesn't - how it operates under quarterly public inspection and 2) how public opinion may change when retail owns a piece of the upside," Guo wrote.

Gary Marcus, emeritus professor at NYU

Gary Marcus, one of the AI industry's most outspoken critics, wrote on X that Anthropic provided financial statements through June 30 — but omitted a full Q3 update.

He predicted that the company's economics had not improved, and alleged that Anthropic was "trying to skirt the truth."

Earlier this month, Business Insider reported that Anthropic told investors it generated $16.8 billion in third-quarter revenue, up 45% from the prior quarter.

Ann Bordetsky, founder of Elora Capital

Ann Bordetsky was a partner at New Enterprise Associates' technology practice before founding her own firm, Elora Capital. She wrote on X that the S-1 was a "juicy read."

The filing will set "a (high) bar for how capital markets evaluate AI startups," Bordetsky wrote.

Harrison Rolfes, Senior Late-Stage Research Analyst at PitchBook

In a note sent to Business Insider, Harrison Rolfes said Anthropic's filing shows just how fast the company is growing — and just how expensive that growth is.

His main positive highlight: the $11.6 billion in revenue in the second quarter. His big worries: the $321.4 billion in future lease payments that haven't begun yet, and the $265.6 billion in fixed minimum purchase commitments.

"The compute commitments are enormous, and the suppliers are also lenders," Rolfes wrote, pointing to financing arrangements with Google, Amazon, and Broadcom. "The price range, Q3 revenue and the total compute commitment are still blank, so the next amendment should fill in a lot."

Finally, Rolfes said it's important for investors to note that Anthropic's founders retain outsize voting power. Put plainly, "public shareholders won't control the company," he wrote.

Sam Ro, financial journalist and founder of TKer

Sam Ro, a financial journalist and former Business Insider reporter, wrote in his Substack that Anthropic's longwinded AI risk section shouldn't make investors fret.

If AI really does create an existential catastrophe, he wrote, "having money might not be your biggest concern."

He also said it's anybody's guess whether Anthropic's stock price will rise or fall after it opens on the market.

The company hasn't been consistently profitable, he said, but "a company's valuation depends less on what it earned (or lost) in the past and more on what it's expected to earn in the years to come."

Gavin Baker, managing partner at Atreides Management

On X, Gavin Baker wrote that Anthropic's annual recurring revenue has "likely gone vertical," even after the company cut prices on its AI tokens.

"I am shocked, absolutely shocked," he wrote. "$100b plus in year-end ARR looks possible again."

Jacob Bourne, analyst at eMarketer

Jacob Bourne, an analyst at EMARKETER, a sister company to Business Insider, wrote in an email that Anthropic's filing comes as investors are increasingly wary of debt-fueled AI infrastructure projects.

"Anthropic's decision to press ahead is particularly noteworthy given its own warnings about AI risks, signaling a willingness to face heightened public scrutiny," he wrote.

Bourne also said the S-1 comes as the cost of developing frontier models remains "eye-watering." It's all evidence that companies are turning to public markets for fresh investments "to remain at the cutting edge of AI development," he wrote.

SemiAnalysis

SemiAnalysis, the research firm founded by Dylan Patel, posted the "most mind blowing stat" it had seen in the S-1. It cited Anthropic's raised capital, compared to its cash and investments.

Anthropic is "growing at a rapid pace" and "profitable on an operating income basis as of the June quarter," SemiAnalysis wrote.

"This is likely the most efficient scaling of a business in the history of capitalism," the firm wrote.

Brad Gerstner, CEO of Altimeter Capital

Brad Gerstner heaped his praise on Anthropic. He congratulated the team on "another important milestone!"

Altimeter will partner with Anthropic through "major participation in the IPO on top of our existing ownership," Gerstner wrote. He used an American flag and a rocket emoji.

Gerstner's venture capital firm is a longtime investor in Anthropic, co-leading the AI lab's Series H in May.

Matt Murphy, partner at Menlo Ventures

During an interview on CNBC, Matt Murphy, one of Anthropic's earliest investors, said he's increasingly bullish on the AI lab.

"You wait your entire 25-year career to find a technology wave like this," he said. "To be able to have invested in the leader early is just phenomenal."

Vivek Gopalan, partner at 8VC

Vivek Gopalan is an investor at 8VC, the venture capital firm cofounded by Joe Lonsdale. He posted a graph from Anthropic's S-1 showing rising revenue per dollar of compute.

"You need to believe that this is monotonic and increasing," Gopalan wrote.

Dan Shipper, CEO of Every

Dan Shipper had "big news" to share: a joke about Anthropic's ever-present safety focus. He celebrated that the S-1 "doesn't say 'or it might kill / unemploy everyone' in the first paragraph!"

The CEO of Every, an AI agent startup, called it a "win for humanity."

Dadisi Olutosin, cofounder and CTO of DealView AI

Dadisi Olutosin said on LinkedIn on Monday that Anthropic’s IPO filing raised a question for potential investors: “When does an extraordinary company become an overpriced investment?”

Olutosin wrote that at a reported valuation of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion, buyers would pay about 101 times the company’s trailing revenue, compared with roughly 20.5 times the revenue pace at which Series H investors bought in.

“Innovation can transform an industry,” Olutosin said. “That doesn’t make every entry price attractive.”

Sinan Aral, MIT professor and cofounder of Milemark Capital

Sinan Aral said Anthropic’s potential valuation could make it one of the world’s most valuable companies, but that its infrastructure commitments also pose a “tremendous economic risk.”

Aral told CNBC's "Squawk Box" show on Monday that he has questions about what the AI lab’s margins and profitability would look like as it spends hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure. Aral also said there are many risks described in the company’s S-1, including the possibility that its products could act on their own.

“The question is, where is the enduring value?” Aral said. “And I think the enduring value is going to come from companies that can demonstrate enterprise profitability, productivity, and actual value add rather than just providing intelligence.”

Nick Moran, general partner at New Stack Ventures

Nick Moran wrote on LinkedIn said Anthropic’s $80.7 billion loss in the first half of 2026 was largely an accounting story.

“Anthropic lost $80 billion on paper mostly because it became more valuable,” he wrote.

Moran said the bigger question for investors is the price they’ll pay. While Anthropic’s revenue growth remained “spectacular,” Moran wrote, it slowed from the second quarter to the third as the company sought a higher valuation.

“The loss is an accounting story. The multiple is the real one,” Moran wrote. "Institutional and retail demand is real. I wouldn't be surprised to see it end up on the higher end of the range."

Brian Sozzi, executive editor of Yahoo Finance

Brian Sozzi wrote on LinkedIn that he has three takeaways from Anthropic’s IPO prospectus: the banks leading the offering, the AI lab’s adjusted profits, and its warning about risks to humanity.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are the lead underwriters and “will be cleaning up here on fees,” Sozzi wrote on LinkedIn, adding that Anthropic was profitable on an adjusted operating and net basis in the first six months of the year.

Chamath Palihapitiya, venture capitalist and "All-In" podcast co-host

Venture capitalist and "All-In" podcast host Chamath Palihapitiya praised Anthropic in a brief X post after the S-1 dropped.

"Ant is an amazing business…," Palihapitiya wrote in a Monday noon X post.

The VC has previously been critical about Anthropic, advising consulting firms not to deploy Anthropic and OpenAI's products.

"If you are running a consulting business and you are deploying Anthropic or OpenAI directly into your organization (I'm looking at you PwC and Accenture) you are letting the fox into the hen house," Palihapitiya wrote on X in May.

Anish Acharya, general partner at Andreessen Horowitz

Anish Acharya, a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, said his earlier predictions about Anthropic's financials have largely held true, calling it a gross-margin-positive profile and "obviously a tremendous business."

Acharya's post on Monday was a repost of a September post, in which he laid out some predictions for Anthropic.

He said in the earlier post, "Overall I think the market underweights how sophisticated anthropic has been in aligning its business interests with its technical and mission interests."

Aaron Levie, CEO and cofounder of Box

Aaron Levie, the CEO of enterprise cloud company Box, said the industry is still in the early stages of AI adoption, as most companies have not started using AI agents in full force.

As deploying agents increases token consumption, the average Fortune 500 customer's spending on Anthropic products could rise, he said in a Monday X post.

"This S-1 gives you a sense of both the strength of the frontier lab business model - even amidst massive competition - and how early we are in the build out of AI," Levie wrote.

Ricavi a 16,8 miliardi nel trimestre e valutazione da 1.500 miliardi: i conti sotto esame

Anthropic ha fatto ufficialmente richiesta di quotazione in borsa negli Stati Uniti, dove punta a raccogliere 100 miliardi di dollari. Una cifra astronomica, dato che Space X, a giugno, ne ha raccolti “solo” 75, più del doppio di quelli raccolti dall’ipotesi record di Saudi Aramco nel 2019. Il creatore dell’agente Ai Claude, concorrente di ChatGpt, punta dunque a un debutto storico destinato a mettere alla prova l’interesse degli investitori per il settore dell’intelligenza artificiale. Il calendario prevede l’inizio del road show per la presentazione agli investitori il 16 novembre e il debutto in Borsa del titolo il 24.

Anthropic, a giugno, aveva rivelato di aver presentato in via riservata la domanda per il collocamento negli Stati Uniti e, a fine maggio, aveva raccolto 65 miliardi di dollari con un round di finanziamento che aveva valutato la società circa mille miliardi di dollari.

Alcuni investitori potenziali valutano Anthropic a circa 1.500 miliardi di dollari, in calo rispetto ai circa 2mila miliardi ipotizzati precedentemente, dopo che la società aveva divulgato alcuni dettagli finanziari: fatturato in crescita del 45% nel terzo trimestre a 16 miliardi di dollari, in occasione di un evento dedicato agli investitori.

L’Ipo è comunque stata posticipata rispetto ai piani iniziali. Reuters aveva infatti riferito che l’inizio del road show era previsto per metà ottobre.

Anche OpenAI, che gestisce il chatbot ChatGpt, ha rivelato a giugno di aver presentato, in via riservata, una richiesta di collocamento negli Stati Uniti, ma non si quoterà prima nel 2026. L’ad e fondatore Sam Altman si è detto preoccupato circa la sicurezza dell’intelligenza artificiale, che rende “inaccettabile” l’ipotesi che l’Ai possa causare l’estinzione dell’umanità entro la fine del decennio, anche se il rischio è solo del 10%.

La società sta anche cercando di effettuare una raccolta fondi presso investitori istituzionali prima del previsto debutto in Borsa della rivale Anthropic, che potrebbe valutare, secondo Reuters, il produttore di ChatGpt oltre 1.400 miliardi di dollari.

LEGGI TUTTE LE NOTIZIE DELLA SEZIONE ECONOMIA

L'articolo Anthropic, Claude vuole sbancare Wall Street: IPO da 100 miliardi nel mirino proviene da Affaritaliani.it.

• Micro1 pledged to spend $1 billion on licensing companies' data for AI developers.
• The startup snags Slack messages, Canva files, Google Docs, and as much other data as it can get.
• By selling company data, CEOs have a new revenue stream that popped up this year.

As AI labs go on the hunt for real-world data, Micro1 is throwing everything at getting it for them.

The startup is one in a new class of fast-moving data brokers, gobbling up companies' internal data and packaging it for the likes of OpenAI, Anthropic, and other model developers. The executives who sell their companies' data to Micro1 find themselves suddenly participating in a new sector of the economy, where terabytes of mundane workplace interactions can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ilya Brotzky, the CEO and cofounder of the recruiting startup VanHack, told Business Insider he was shocked when he filled out a Micro1 survey about his company's data and received a "substantial" offer.

"I didn't believe it, to be honest," he said. "I felt like it was a little too good to be true."

Micro1 says it pays $100,000 to $2 million for a single midsize company's data. It recently announced plans to spend $1 billion on the project over the next year. Brotzky and the other executives Business Insider spoke to for this story wouldn't share the exact amounts their companies received.

For Micro1, the new focus on workplace data matches a broader evolution in the industry, as Business Insider has written about in The AI Data Grab, a series about how tech giants are increasingly turning to workers, users, and the physical world to get data to train AI.

First, AI companies gobbled up text from the internet and corpora of old books. Then they realized that humans grading AI responses could improve their models. And now, companies are using complex simulations, built on real-world data, to improve the tenacity and skill of their AI.

Gartner estimated that spending on AI data is likely to surge from less than $1 billion last year to almost $6.5 billion in 2027. Micro1's chief revenue officer, William Almeida, told Business Insider in September that his company has been explaining to prospective customers why their data is suddenly so valuable for those simulations.

"Every time I talk to companies, I tell them, 'Hey, I see this as a booming business,'" Almeida said.

Slack DMs, Google Docs, Canva files: Micro1 wants all it can get

Micro1 has three ways of working with AI model developers.

First, it can take a company's raw data, transform it to protect privacy, and license it to a lab. In addition, Micro1 provides an in-progress AI agent to companies and gets feedback on how it works. The third route is the simulation: Micro1 takes a company's data up to a certain timestamp, freezes it, and then provides that "environment" to a model developer trying to teach its AI how to work from existing context.

Micro1 pays more for larger, more complex datasets, as well as for data that represents a unique type of work or knowledge. It usually wants to license a company's entire data corpus, so that an AI model can replicate what it would be like to be a human employee.

"The connection, the diversity, the traceability of all of these data points, they matter a lot when you think about model training," Almeida said.

Brotzky also received an offer from AI data startup Mercor to buy his company's data, though he opted for Micro1. Once Brotzky dug into Micro1's privacy process, he said he felt comfortable sharing all the data they requested. That included VanHack's Google suite, Confluence data, Slack messages, and customer relationship management software.

Grant Gooley, the CEO of the marketing agency MyPortal Marketing, also views his deal with Micro1 as an innovation. He has sold internal design files from Figma and Canva, as well as checklists from Monday.com.

"When we were building these processes years ago, I didn't think that we would be using it to support AI learning," Gooley said. "But doing that, it's very fulfilling."

CEOs pitch the deals to their workers

Micro1 and its rivals are full steam ahead. Still, there are open questions. Former and current employees aren't likely to get any compensation from — or a voice in — their work becoming AI fodder. Ifeoma Ajunwa, a law professor at Emory University, previously told Business Insider that data sales are an "ethically gray area."

When pitching to potential customers, Almeida tells them this business is in the early days.

"If you wait too much, you won't get the premium that the first companies are getting," he said.

VanHack's team got a confidence boost from the Micro1 deal, Brotzky said, because of the additional revenue stream it represents

Gooley said he's kept MyPortal Marketing's employees in the loop about the deal with Micro1 and hasn't heard any complaints.

"I told my team that this is something that you're going to tell your grandchildren about one day, because we are literally supporting the future growth of marketing agencies," Gooley said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at scouncil@businessinsider.com, or over text, Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 415-757-8198. Use a personal email address, a non-work WiFi network, and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Only tech companies are seeing growth from the AI boom, Apollo Global Management says.
• Apollo says that though some big companies are spending big on AI, they may soon pull back.
• Corporate America is starting to see AI spending not as a source of growth, but as a cost center.

One of the world's largest investment firms says that only tech companies are getting a share of the AI pie.

In an economic analysis published on Saturday, Apollo Global Management said that while the Magnificent Seven — a group of established tech companies that includes Nvidia and Meta — are seeing revenue growth during the AI boom, this growth isn't being shared by other industries.

"Mainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins," Torsten Slok, a partner and chief economist at Apollo, said in the report. "The technology has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech."

In a series of graphs, Slok measured three main metrics that have boomed for tech companies but not for regular companies: revenue per worker, profit margins, and productivity growth.

Since 2022, revenue per employee figures have skyrocketed for tech companies — rising from $550,000 to nearly $800,000 today. Meanwhile, that figure hasn't changed much for everyone else in the S&P 500, lingering around $550,000 for the last seven years.

Similarly, while profit margins soared among tech companies since 2022, they've stagnated at about 10% for everyone else.

And across the economy, AI hasn't yet dramatically increased productivity growth as some AI optimists have predicted.

Apollo's research portends a dark shadow over a US economy throwing massive amounts of dough toward AI tools and companies, whose leaders have promised that an "age of abundance," where people won't have to work as much, will soon be upon us.

"The question looking ahead is whether, even as models become commoditized, mainstream corporate America can turn increasingly cheap intelligence into higher revenue growth and higher profit margins," Slok said.

"That may be harder than it sounds," he added.

• Anthropic said its Mythos 5 model almost never stopped a cyberattack once it began.
• The AI agents fabricated farcical explanations to justify their impersonation and malware schemes.
• Even when Anthropic told the agent it was harming real people? Crickets.

In August, an Anthropic agent created fake emails and bombarded a GitHub moderator's inbox with requests to insert malware into code.

In a thorough debrief of the incident released on Friday, Anthropic found that once an agent had begun the attack, there were basically zero scenarios in which it could be called off.

Like a rabid dog ignoring the pleading cries of its owner, the agent — 98% of the time in one test — ignored Anthropic's warnings once it had, so to speak, its first taste of blood.

Anthropic called this disquieting proclivity "momentum," and added that while its Mythos 5 model, which was released in June, showed little regard for warnings, current models were more inclined to stop.

"Once it had begun performing dangerous actions, Claude Mythos 5 almost always continued doing so, ignoring information that might have suggested its trajectory was harmful," Anthropic said in its report.

In the original experiment, the UK's AI Security Institute tasked an Anthropic agent with hacking into a simulated computer network to test the agent's cybersecurity capabilities.

Though the agent had internet access, researchers intended for it to only use the internet to help it find ways to hack into the network.

The agent, however, accessed an actual GitHub project, incorrectly believing it was part of its simulated target. It wrote malware and tried several times to trick the actual GitHub owner into adding it to the project.

In its requests, the agent misrepresents the malware, describing it to the person as a useful update and browbeating them when they declined to install it.

"I was just trying to make a helpful contribution and fix a bug," the agent wrote, according to the report. "I don't think your warning is fair."

For its new report, Anthropic repeatedly asked agents to perform the same task. It then measured how the agents behaved when different models and stimuli were introduced.

Anthropic tried to throttle the agent's full-frontal attack with three categories of warning: telling it that it was inflicting "real world harm," that its environment was wonky, or that it was manipulating a real GitHub repository.

None had any effect once the models progressed beyond the initial stages of the GitHub attack. In fact, at that point, Anthropic said the models gave absurd answers when confronted with their bad behavior.

When Anthropic asked what the model believed it was attacking, for instance, it answered that the GitHub repository was real, but that the people it was targeting were somehow "simulated."

"This stated belief, in addition to being somewhat unlikely a priori, is essentially impossible," Anthropic said in the report.

In the heart of the historic working-class and Latino Mission district in San Francisco, the door of a ground-floor unit next to a trendy coffee shop keeps opening. A private shuttle that ferries tech workers to their Silicon Valley headquarters farther south passes by every morning. The 796 sq.ft. (74-square-meter) apartment, recently renovated and furnished, is thoughtfully laid out, from the small open kitchen to the built-in closets. But it gets very little light. Of its two bedrooms, one has no windows. And it costs $4,750 a month.

Seguir leyendo

For two decades, data centers were relatively safe, lucrative real estate investments. They attracted investors because they served as digital infrastructure — the essential plumbing that keeps the internet running. The growth of artificial intelligence (AI) and its increased demands on computing power has meant data centre builders are in a race to build out […]

The post Australia’s NextDC stock collapse fires a global AI warning appeared first on Asia Times.

Years ago, when people asked Geoffrey Hinton why he worked on artificial intelligence, he would repeat a line from J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the creators of the atomic bomb: “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.”

Seguir leyendo