Rao’s low revenue word choice matters here. He said “exceeding $5 billion” and not “nearly $6 billion,” not “approaching $6 billion.”
In a filing where Anthropic was trying to impress a federal court with its commercial scale, Rao is expected to use the biggest number he can. “Exceeding $5 billion” tells you his real figure is much closer to $5 billion than to $6.
Look, I have a genAI aversion as much as anyone on this community. But…
Is that what was stated in a federal court arguably true? I think so. Trying to define what someone is “expected” to achieve with a statement and using that as some kind of proof? That’s too rich for my taste.
Anthropic has every incentive in that court filling to provide as high a number as possible, because the bigger the number the better of a contract they can expect to get out of it. The fact that they didn’t means that they couldn’t (without lying).
Look, I have a genAI aversion as much as anyone on this community. But…
Is that what was stated in a federal court arguably true? I think so. Trying to define what someone is “expected” to achieve with a statement and using that as some kind of proof? That’s too rich for my taste.
Anthropic has every incentive in that court filling to provide as high a number as possible, because the bigger the number the better of a contract they can expect to get out of it. The fact that they didn’t means that they couldn’t (without lying).