• Satya Nadella says he changed his mind on AI alignment, or ensuring AI aligns with human values.
• Nadella said he previously thought alignment would just happen as AI capabilities improved.
• "I no longer believe that," Nadella said on the 20VC podcast.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella says he has changed his mind about the idea that alignment would naturally emerge as AI systems became more capable.

On a new episode of the 20VC podcast, host Harry Stebbings asked Nadella what he'd changed his mind about over the past year. The CEO said he had previously assumed that as AI became more capable, alignment — ensuring AI behaves in line with human values and goals — would automatically follow.

Instead, he said, while scaling has played out as he expected and the models' capabilities have continued to improve, alignment remained a challenge.

"I used to always think that alignment would just fall out," Nadella said. "I no longer believe that. I think this alignment thing may be a harder, different problem."

The Microsoft CEO previously warned about the risks of AI and argued for greater external controls in a post on X on October 10. Nadella said companies should treat AI models as insider threats and assume they are "compromised."

"We need to surround non-deterministic models with strong, deterministic system design, human controls, and reliable operating procedures, and establish industry standards where existing ones are insufficient," Nadella wrote.

His belief that AI's increasing capabilities won't automatically ensure human control is in line with warnings of other tech leaders. Both OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei have warned about the threats of AI. A letter signed by more than 1,000 AI workers in July warned that AI capabilities could advance faster than people's ability to understand or control the systems.

• Microsoft is offering buyouts to about 60,000 employees.
• The offers are individualized to each employee based on their level, location, and tenure.
• Business Insider reviewed offers to show what employees get when they leave the company.

As Microsoft sends out its buyout offers to more than a quarter of its workforce, specific offers reviewed by Business Insider reveal exactly what employees get if they choose to leave the company.

The offers are individualized for each employee based on their level, location, and tenure. Those reviewed by Business Insider confirm that the US buyouts align with the company's US standard severance offers. A Microsoft spokesperson said about 60,000 employees would be eligible for the buyout.

Microsoft uses a levels system to represent seniority, from entry levels starting at 59 to senior levels at 70, or vice president. The company offered buyouts to employees on select teams in the US, Canada, India, and the UK at level 70.

Offers reviewed by Business Insider show employees at internal levels 64 and below were offered one week of base pay per six months of service, and employees at levels 65 to 67 were offered two weeks of base pay per six months of service.

Buyout offers also include continued regular stock vesting and health insurance. The standard stock-vesting severance offer is six or 12 months for levels 67 and below, based on years of service.

Eligible employees will have until early December to decide whether to take the offer and exit at the end of the year, and there are no plans for another buyout at this time, a Microsoft spokesperson said.

Standard severance is capped at 39 weeks of base pay for levels 67 and below, while the standard severance offer for level 68 includes 12 months of salary.

Earlier this year, Microsoft rolled out a voluntary retirement program for employees. About 7% of Microsoft's US workforce, or about 8,750 people, were eligible at the time. As Business Insider previously reported, Microsoft's voluntary retirement program offer also aligned with the company's standard severance offer, including continued regular stock vesting for six or 12 months, based on years of service.

Earlier this year, another tech giant, Google, offered buyouts to staff in its business unit, Business Insider previously reported.

As more tech companies offer buyouts, some human resources professionals previously told Business Insider that this approach could soften job cuts, and also that when they're made available to workers of all tenures, companies risk losing talent.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Anthropic's IPO filing offers a look at a workplace where Claude does much of the coding.
• The company said it grew from 940 employees to 5,300 in less than two years.
• "Low ego" is a cultural ideal, and keeping top AI talent is a key challenge.

Anthropic is rapidly growing head count, concerned about retaining top talent, and trying to build a "low-ego" culture.

Those are among the workplace insights in the Claude maker's IPO filing released Monday.

The more than 200,000-word document reveals what it takes to thrive as an employee — or an "Ant," as staffers are called — and why the company is so focused on retaining its top talent.

Here's a look at three workplace themes in Anthropic's S-1:

Head count is booming, but could be higher without Claude

Anthropic said its workforce grew from about 940 employees at the end of 2024 to about 5,300 as of late September.

The more than fivefold spike in head count in less than two years is notable on its own. Yet, without Claude, it could have grown more. Anthropic said the tool is helping its staffers take on work that would traditionally have required much larger teams — something many tech companies are looking to do to become more nimble.

Most Anthropic employees work in research, engineering, and product development. The company said its strategy is to use Claude to grow the business "without growing head count linearly, resulting in extraordinary contributions per employee."

One place where that's evident is in software engineering. The company said these workers increasingly direct and review Claude's output rather than write code line by line. Claude wrote more than 90% of the contributions to the company's codebase in September, while average daily code contributions per engineer in the third quarter were more than 45 times their average daily level in 2024, Anthropic said.

Recruiter Martha Heller said it's little surprise to see Anthropic talking up its use of Claude. "Of course they're going to eat their own dog food," she said. In any case, Heller said, the company still needs people to provide oversight of AI's activities.

Yet the gap between staffing levels and output could grow, said Aaron Cleavinger, an executive recruiting partner at Flatiron Search Partners.

"Head count is becoming a less meaningful measure of organizational capability," he said. Cleavinger said it's not yet clear what the new measure will be, though Anthropic's approach suggests companies might put greater emphasis on workers' productivity and business impact.

It describes retention as paramount

Despite having significantly upped its employee count, Anthropic said it's highly dependent on its senior leaders and key technical team members. The company warned that their departure could disrupt operations and slow innovation.

While that's true for any employer, Anthropic faces additional challenges. It's a fast-growing startup in a booming industry, where few people have the right technical skills — and those who do are being heavily courted by competitors.

Winning the war for talent is half the battle. Anthropic is also part of an industry where some workers have quit and issued dire public warnings about the dangers of increasingly powerful AI.

For example, safety researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic last month, saying the company and his former employer, OpenAI, were moving too quickly toward increasingly powerful AI without a sufficient plan to control it.

"That's not garden-variety turnover," said Liane Davey, an advisor on team effectiveness to executives at companies such as Amazon and Google.

If employees determine that their work poses an existential threat, no bonus can simply erase moral qualms, Davey added.

In its S-1, Anthropic said many key technical workers are motivated by its mission and by the chance to tackle specific AI problems. However, if their beliefs change, or another organization seems more aligned with their personal beliefs or professional goals, "we may face increased difficulty retaining such personnel," Anthropic said.

The company's internal data suggests that, at least for now, turnover isn't a significant problem. It said it experienced only about 1% "regrettable attrition" in a 12-month period ending on September 30.

However, Anthropic may have a thinner pipeline of junior technical talent to elevate. The company said in a recently released internal report that it has been hiring for a "smaller share of junior technical positions" as AI agents have been deployed across the firm to write code, fix bugs, and handle other tasks.

Anthropic is betting on a "low-ego" workforce

Anthropic touts a "low-ego" or "ego-light" culture, meaning all employees are expected to prioritize what's best for the company over personal status, credit, or seniority. It uses similar language on its website in a section describing its values.

In the S-1, the company went further, saying the arrangement allows for an "unusually short" distance between a research insight and a released product. Anthropic also said a shared purpose, paired with low ego, translates directly into less organizational friction and greater impact per employee.

"Our teams operate in a truth-seeking environment where the best argument wins, not the loudest voice or the most senior title," Anthropic said.

Jamie Shapiro, an organizational psychologist and CEO coach, said that logic makes sense because good ideas can come from anyone within an organization, especially those who directly interact with customers.

"An organization that has idea meritocracy is going to get the best ideas," she said.

However, as Anthropic grows, the more challenging task will be ensuring its hiring, recognition, promotion, and accountability systems reinforce its ideals — rather than allowing exceptions that undermine them.

"The bigger the organization, the harder it is to make sure everyone is living and breathing the culture it wants," said Shapiro. "Culture is defined by the worst behaviors you allow."

• 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.

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.

• Microsoft is offering buyouts to around 60,000 employees.
• The offers will go out later today, and resemble Microsoft's standard severance offer.
• The buyout offer could help Microsoft cut costs and reshape its workforce for the AI era.

Microsoft is offering buyouts, according to a memo Chief People Officer Amy Coleman sent to employees Monday.

"The Voluntary Exit Offer reflects an important part of how we're evolving our approach to change: creating greater flexibility and, where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter," Coleman wrote.

Microsoft's voluntary exit offer is the company's latest attempt to slim its workforce without another round of involuntary cuts. After spending heavily on AI infrastructure and reducing headcount this year, Microsoft is offering remaining employees a chance to leave, testing whether voluntary departures can cut costs.

Eligible employees in the U.S., Canada, India, and the U.K. at level 70, which includes senior leaders at the company, and below, will receive an email later Monday with the terms of the offer. Only some teams are participating, excluding sales organizations, some engineering, and some corporate functions.

Around 60,000 employees — or more than a quarter of the company's workforce — about will be eligible, a spokesperson told Business Insider, and the terms will be similar to Microsoft's standard severance.

The US severance package offered when Microsoft laid off employees earlier this year included a minimum of 60 days of base pay, during which employees will remain on the payroll, and, for most employees, up to a maximum of 39 weeks of base pay, based on seniority and tenure.

Employees at internal levels 64 and below received one week of base pay per six months of service, for example, and employees at levels 65 to 67 will receive two weeks of base pay per six months of service, according to offers reviewed by Business Insider.

Eligible employees will have until early December to decide whether to take the offer and exit at the end of the year, and there are no plans for another buyout at this time, Microsoft's spokesperson said.

The buyout offer follows Microsoft's Voluntary Retirement Program, which offered a retirement buyout to about 9,000 eligible employees based on age and tenure.

About one-third of eligible employees took the buyout, in line with expectations, a person familiar with the turnout told Business Insider in June. That buyout allowed Microsoft to lay off a lower percentage of its workforce compared to last year, the person said at the time.

Read the memo:

Introducing a Voluntary Exit Offer

Today, we're introducing a new Voluntary Exit Offer (VEO) to eligible employees within participating organizations. This offer gives eligible employees who may be considering a future outside the company a new choice to make that transition now with support. It also gives participating orgs another way to adapt their workforce to changing needs.

The Voluntary Exit Offer reflects an important part of how we're evolving our approach to change: creating greater flexibility and, where possible, more ways for employees to shape their next chapter. This builds on what we learned earlier this year through the Voluntary Retirement Program.

What employees should know

This offer will be available to eligible employees in participating teams in Canada, India, United Kingdom and United States at level 70 and below. This is a time-limited, voluntary program that gives those who are eligible the opportunity to leave Microsoft with financial support and career planning resources. Some organizations are providing the Voluntary Exit Offer, and some are not. Participation varies based on each business's priorities, customer commitments, and workforce needs.

Eligible employees will receive an email with a link to their Voluntary Exit Offer details within the next few hours.

Looking ahead

The Voluntary Exit Offer is new for us. We'll learn from it. At the same time, we'll keep helping people focus on the work that matters most, build new skills, and, where it makes sense, find new opportunities across Microsoft. There is no one-size-fits-all approach for every team or every employee. These are a few of the ways we're trying to meet different business needs while continuing to create opportunities for our own people to grow and contribute.

My promise is to continue to provide clarity, listen and learn, and keep improving.

Thank you for everything you continue to do for our customers, Microsoft, and for one another.

Amy

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• 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.

Il nipote del boss mafioso avrebbe fatto campagna elettorale per un candidato di Fratelli d’Italia. A raccontarlo è l’ultima puntata dell’inchiesta de “Lo Stato delle cose”, la trasmissione condotta da Massimo Giletti, che da diverse settimane indaga sul rischio delle infiltrazioni mafiose nel mondo degli appalti per le pulizie negli ospedali. L’inviato Silvio Schembri ha ricostruito come molti appartenenti della famiglia Genova lavorino persino all’interno del Tribunale di Palermo. Quasi tutti sono incensurati e occupano posti al vertice delle ditte che si occupano di pulizie negli uffici pubblici.

Anche Nino Genova è stato a capo dell’area operativa della ditta Dusmann, una delle aziende che si occupano delle pulizie negli uffici pubblici. Incensurato, nipote del boss detenuto Salvatore Genova, la trasmissione Rai ha trovato una sua foto con Fabrizio Ferrara, deputato regionale di FdI. Un testimone che ha lavorato per Nino Genova, inoltre, racconta che proprio il parente del boss avrebbe chiesto di votare per Ferrara alle ultime elezioni del 2022. Lo Stato delle cose è in onda stasera su Rai3 alle 21 e 15.

L'articolo “Il nipote del boss fotografato col politico FdI, chiedeva di votare per lui”: l’inchiesta de Lo Stato delle cose proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Giornalista televisivo tra i più conosciuti, tornato in Rai nel 2024 dopo sei anni a La7, Massimo Giletti è alla guida del programma di approfondimento Lo Stato delle Cose, in onda su Rai 3. Il suo patrimonio è legato a due attività principali: la lunga carriera nel mondo della televisione e la partecipazione nell’azienda tessile di famiglia. Ma quanto guadagna e quali sono le sue fonti di reddito?

Quanto guadagna Massimo Giletti: lo stipendio in Rai

Una delle principali fonti di reddito di Massimo Giletti è rappresentata dalla conduzione televisiva. Nel corso della sua carriera ha lavorato per decenni in Rai, diventando uno dei volti più conosciuti dell’intrattenimento e dell’approfondimento giornalistico, prima di passare a La7 nel 2017. Il conduttore ha parlato pubblicamente dei propri compensi anche in passato.

In un’occasione aveva dichiarato di percepire 400.000 euro lordi all’anno durante la sua precedente esperienza in Rai. Dopo l’esperienza a La7, dove ha condotto Non è l’Arena, Giletti è tornato nella televisione pubblica nel marzo 2024. La Rai ha annunciato la firma di un contratto per diversi progetti editoriali, senza rendere pubblici tutti i dettagli economici dell’accordo.

Per la conduzione del programma Lo Stato delle Cose, alcune ricostruzioni giornalistiche hanno indicato un compenso di circa 1,1 milioni di euro lordi per il periodo 2024-2025. La cifra non equivale a uno stipendio annuale ufficialmente certificato per il 2026 e non è possibile dare per scontato che le condizioni economiche siano rimaste invariate. Nel settembre 2026, intanto, la Rai ha confermato il ritorno del programma su Rai 3, con una nuova stagione dedicata alle inchieste e all’attualità.

Massimo Giletti: quale quota ha nell’azienda tessile di famiglia

Accanto alla televisione, un’altra componente degli interessi economici di Giletti è rappresentata dalla Giletti Spa, storica azienda tessile con sede a Valdilana, nel Biellese. La società, legata alla famiglia da generazioni, opera nel settore della preparazione e filatura delle fibre tessili.

Dopo la morte del padre Emilio, avvenuta nel 2020, Massimo Giletti ha ereditato una partecipazione nell’impresa insieme ai fratelli Emanuele e Maurizio. Secondo le informazioni pubblicate dalla stampa, ciascuno dei tre possiede una quota pari a circa un terzo del capitale. La gestione operativa è affidata ai fratelli: Emanuele ricopre il ruolo di amministratore delegato, mentre Maurizio è presidente.

I risultati economici dell’azienda tessile hanno attraversato una fase complessa negli ultimi esercizi. Nel 2023 la società aveva registrato un utile di circa 515.000 euro. Nel 2024, invece, il profitto era sceso a 229.000 euro, mentre i ricavi erano diminuiti da 7,2 a 5,8 milioni di euro. Le informazioni disponibili sul bilancio 2025 indicano un ulteriore ridimensionamento dell’attività. Secondo i dati riportati da Spacepack, elaborati sulla base di informazioni societarie, il fatturato della Giletti Spa è sceso a circa 4,39 milioni di euro, con una contrazione del 23,9% rispetto all’esercizio precedente.

Quanti immobili possiede Massimo Giletti?

Per quanto riguarda il patrimonio immobiliare, il giornalista divide la sua vita tra Roma e il Piemonte, dove si trovano due dimore legate a esigenze e ricordi differenti. Nella Capitale, il conduttore possiede un appartamento nel quartiere Parioli, una delle zone residenziali più esclusive della città. In Piemonte, invece, Giletti è particolarmente legato alla villa di Ponzone, frazione di Valdilana (ex Trivero), in provincia di Biella, vicino ai luoghi d’origine della sua famiglia e alla storica attività tessile. Lo stesso Giletti l’ha definita in passato il suo «buen retiro», la casa a cui è legato fin dall’infanzia. Non sono però disponibili valutazioni aggiornate e verificate che consentano di stabilire il valore di mercato delle due proprietà o il loro peso effettivo nel patrimonio complessivo del conduttore.

• A version of this story originally appeared in the AI Insider newsletter.
• Sign up for Business Insider's weekly AI Insider newsletter here.

A few weekends ago, my wife left on a business trip with one instruction: fix the Wi-Fi before I get back.

Her Zoom calls kept dropping during important meetings, so I tracked an old Cat 6 ethernet cable from our data closet so I could hardwire her laptop to the interwebs. The only problem? It ended as a raw, cut end, and I had no idea how to terminate it with an ethernet plug.

So I did what I do these days whenever I'm out of my depth: I asked ChatGPT.

I sent it photos at every stage. It told me which tools to buy, showed me how to strip the cable, arrange the eight tiny wires in the right order, and even drew little diagrams when words weren't enough. When I got frustrated, it gave me a pep talk.

My first attempt only delivered about 100 Mbps instead of our 1 Gbps internet connection. ChatGPT guessed two wires were faulty, suggested an inexpensive cable tester, interpreted the flashing lights from a photo, and confirmed the diagnosis. I cut the connector off and started again with a simpler plug it recommended.

The result? Around 850 Mbps.

My only complaint: ChatGPT would occasionally disappear down a rabbit hole with advice that was far more complicated than I needed, so I'd remind it I wasn't rewiring Silicon Valley. I just wanted my wife's Zoom calls to stop dropping.

So far, her video calls have been perfect. Without ChatGPT, there's no chance I'd have pulled this off.

Sign up for the AI Insider newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com

For Emergence Magazine, James Bridle writes about artificial intelligence; carpentry and chair-making with ChatGPT; and Enzo Mari, a famed Italian furniture designer from the 1950s and ’60s. Bridle asks: “What if we used AI for something actually useful?” They offer an interesting take on AI, and why the extractive way we’re using it is far from satisfying.

What we have here is, quite literally, a chair designed by someone who has read a lot about chairs but never actually sat in one. They know what a chair should look like, what it should do, the mechanics of how one is put together, the physics of holding you up. But they have no embodied experience of the world, no history with chairs or any other object, no physical memory. They don’t know how it feels, not merely to sit in a chair, but to encounter one in the world, to place it among other things in a home, to live with it, to be around it every day as one goes about the mundane business of life. This is the idea of a chair brought to life; but things—objects, beings, relationships—are not mere ideas, and you certainly can’t get every aspect of them from books. The chair is low stakes, but, once again, you wouldn’t want to run a society, or a culture, or a planet this way.

• Shares in neocloud companies are falling over concerns about their levels of debt.
• CoreWeave and Nebius, two major public neoclouds, have seen their stocks drop sharply in recent weeks.
• On Sunday, Elon Musk questioned the sector, saying that "some will make it through, but not many."

Neocloud companies are sliding even lower.

Shares dropped further on Monday after Elon Musk warned that many of them face "guppy-level death."

CoreWeave and Nebius have both fallen more than 30% over the past month, largely due to growing concerns about the debt they've taken on to build more data centers.

Soon after Monday's open, shares in both companies were down a further 4%, while Iren, another publicly traded neocloud, fell 2%.

The declines follow a string of X posts from Musk on Sunday evening questioning the neocloud business model.

"As of the past few weeks, debt markets have almost entirely shut off access to money for any company that doesn't have substantial revenue independent of AI data centers," he said.

"That means the 200+ neoclouds are going to see guppy-level death and consolidation," he added. "Some will make it through, but not many."

Musk said that while SpaceX has closed $40 billion in debt to buy GPUs, his company makes money through Starlink and rocket launches.

Meanwhile, investors are worried that a slowing AI boom could leave debt-heavy neoclouds struggling to service their loans.

After one X user posted arguing that Musk was trying to drive down the share prices of neocloud companies to acquire them, Musk replied: "SpaceX is not buying any neoclouds. Pointless."

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang remains bullish about the sector. "The demand for the neoclouds is off the charts," he told CNBC last Thursday.

Nvidia holds significant stakes in CoreWeave, Nebius, and other cloud-computing companies.

A CoreWeave spokesperson said: "The AI cloud market is not a monolith," and that lenders distinguish between speculative capacity and businesses with contracted revenue and a record of delivery.

They added that the company is "already a market leader operating at scale" with expertise, which it sees as key for opportunities to finance further growth.

A recent Bernstein Research report analyzed thousands of planned US data centers and estimated that only about 35% of the announced capacity will be built.

"Press releases are cheap … concrete is not," Bernstein analysts wrote in a research note.