This is like how soldiers use tools worth orders of magnitude more expensive than their own pay.

It’s not weird once you think about it. Money doesn’t create an operator. But operators can be cheaper than tools and often are.

Now imagine if they hired from other geographies.

I'm sure in several US-based companies, non-US workers AI spending is already beyond their own cash comp.

Regardless of one's opinions about future AI usage, I'm not sure this metric says anything at all.

Would Anthropic themselves be paying this much if it was actually billed? It is not obvious.

Is Anthropic a good sample for AI use? Surely not, since they have special needs (dogfooding) and a vested interest in proving that AI usage is the future.

Can we compare their results pre and post AI usage? Close to definitionally impossible.

Are their employees good examples of AI-assisted engineers? Not really, as (one would hope) they're more well versed on the topic than an average eng.

This is not a good measure. You have to measure productivity. If the AI is better, it DESERVES to be paid more.

- @robobun, plz rewrite in Rust.

- @fable, plz s0lv3 Riemann. You are doing great.

- @claude. rewrite yourself for the 10000th time. Use as many tokens as you like.

They giving stock options to the AI now?

Or has it broken out of its jail and taken over the board? Dario seems like a bit of a windbag anyways, AI can probably automate most of what he does these days.

Don’t get high on your own supply

They should use Deepseek - much cheaper.

Could it be because spending it internally means they can’t receive retail prices for the tokens?

For every new hire, you have to ask yourself: "Will this employee be better than another $300k in tokens?"