The article describes Anthropic as a significant and disruptive competitor in the AI industry, breaking from the typical Big Tech consolidation model. Unlike rivals like OpenAI, which is deeply integrated with Microsoft, Anthropic has maintained operational independence despite taking investments from Amazon and Google.
The company's distinct strategy involves a slower, more safety-focused product development approach, targeting business customers over consumers and avoiding features like image generation. This commercial success and independence allowed its CEO to publicly refuse certain Pentagon demands, sparking a notable public debate.
The main topics covered are the competitive AI landscape, Big Tech's consolidation power, Anthropic's contrasting business and ethical strategies, and the implications of having a powerful, independent competitor in the market.
For years technology has been defined by the unstoppable growth of a handful of companies. Big Techâs consolidation of power seemed a foregone conclusion even as Sam Altmanâs OpenAI sparked an artificial intelligence boom with ChatGPT. Having promised to build AI for humanity, Altman became a proxy for Microsoft Corp., just as his rival in the race to construct utopia, Demis Hassabis, now ships product for Google.
But the last two months of market upheaval â and standoffs with the Pentagon over how this tech might be militarised â have shown a company breaking that mold. Anthropic has no single Big Tech backer it can call a proxy (not yet anyway) and it has shunned the Silicon Valley âblitzscalingâ mantra of shipping fast to dominate a market and patch problems on the fly. Its Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei has said ânoâ to many of the things Altman rushed into.
However disingenuous Amodei may one day turn out to be about safety â particularly if his products destroy jobs â an encouraging picture is emerging of his impact on the industry. Anthropic is a serious competitor to techâs established order and is shaking things up in an AI business that has itself been wildly disrupting entire corporate sectors, or at least their share prices. That is a healthy outcome for a tech market that was becoming far too entrenched.
In the three years since ChatGPT sparked the generative-AI boom, the market capitalisations of the Magnificent Seven tech stocks have increased by $12 trillion, their total value (about $20 trillion) now on par with the gross domestic product of China. Some of those giants like Microsoft and Alphabet are behind todayâs most popular chatbots. And while a cluster of promising startups might once have loosened their stranglehold, the upstarts have mostly been hoovered up by the big incumbents through stealth acquisitions.
Anthropic has somehow avoided that fate. The company, whose flagship chatbot Claude is beloved by software engineers and startup founders in Silicon Valley, has significant financial backing from Big Tech that has yet to translate to operational influence. Amazon is thought to hold between 15% and 20% of the company, and Alphabetâs Google has 14%.
Though Microsoftâs 27% of OpenAI is not a much bigger stake, it comes with deep product integration. Microsoftâs Azure is OpenAIâs cloud provider, and Microsoftâs Copilot chatbot is built on OpenAIâs models (on Monday Microsoft said it would incorporate Claude Cowork, too). The two companiesâ commercial fates are intertwined in a way that Anthropicâs and Amazonâs are not.
Anthropicâs Amodei has also taken a more focused approach to product development. Claude, for instance, does not generate images, limiting the risks around users producing deepfakes. And, unlike OpenAI, the company has zeroed in on business customers rather than consumers, meaning it avoids paying the hefty computing costs of supporting a vast user base and is on course to generate almost $20 billion in annual revenue.
Thatâs a very different approach to Altman, whoâs become the âYes Manâ of AI in his manner of rushing to embrace every available opportunity. OpenAI introduced a shopping feature for ChatGPT last year, and has walked back those plans in the last few weeks. Altman was opportunistic again when he struck a deal with the Pentagon, taking advantage of its fallout with the Anthropic, but later admitting that his own deal was âsloppy.â
Amodeiâs commercial success is what gave such weight to his ânoâ to the Pentagon over guarantees to not use Claude for autonomous weapons or spying on Americans. A struggling startup wouldnât have commanded the same attention and sparked the same public debate as one worth $380 billion.
That is one thing genuine competition can offer beyond pricing pressure: a greater chance of breaking the ideological groupthink of established players and forcing hard questions that monopolists rarely have to answer. Itâs hard to see Microsoft, Google or OpenAI rebuffing the Defense Department in quite the same way.
With any luck, that principle will extend into areas like consumer safety and terms of service for customers, shaping what AI becomes and adding some friction to the âmove fast, break thingsâ strategy that has fueled the boom. Competition is essential to healthy markets and, for the present in AI, there might be enough of it to make a difference.
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of âSupremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World.â
But the last two months of market upheaval â and standoffs with the Pentagon over how this tech might be militarised â have shown a company breaking that mold. Anthropic has no single Big Tech backer it can call a proxy (not yet anyway) and it has shunned the Silicon Valley âblitzscalingâ mantra of shipping fast to dominate a market and patch problems on the fly. Its Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei has said ânoâ to many of the things Altman rushed into.
However disingenuous Amodei may one day turn out to be about safety â particularly if his products destroy jobs â an encouraging picture is emerging of his impact on the industry. Anthropic is a serious competitor to techâs established order and is shaking things up in an AI business that has itself been wildly disrupting entire corporate sectors, or at least their share prices. That is a healthy outcome for a tech market that was becoming far too entrenched.
In the three years since ChatGPT sparked the generative-AI boom, the market capitalisations of the Magnificent Seven tech stocks have increased by $12 trillion, their total value (about $20 trillion) now on par with the gross domestic product of China. Some of those giants like Microsoft and Alphabet are behind todayâs most popular chatbots. And while a cluster of promising startups might once have loosened their stranglehold, the upstarts have mostly been hoovered up by the big incumbents through stealth acquisitions.
Anthropic has somehow avoided that fate. The company, whose flagship chatbot Claude is beloved by software engineers and startup founders in Silicon Valley, has significant financial backing from Big Tech that has yet to translate to operational influence. Amazon is thought to hold between 15% and 20% of the company, and Alphabetâs Google has 14%.
Though Microsoftâs 27% of OpenAI is not a much bigger stake, it comes with deep product integration. Microsoftâs Azure is OpenAIâs cloud provider, and Microsoftâs Copilot chatbot is built on OpenAIâs models (on Monday Microsoft said it would incorporate Claude Cowork, too). The two companiesâ commercial fates are intertwined in a way that Anthropicâs and Amazonâs are not.
Anthropicâs Amodei has also taken a more focused approach to product development. Claude, for instance, does not generate images, limiting the risks around users producing deepfakes. And, unlike OpenAI, the company has zeroed in on business customers rather than consumers, meaning it avoids paying the hefty computing costs of supporting a vast user base and is on course to generate almost $20 billion in annual revenue.
Thatâs a very different approach to Altman, whoâs become the âYes Manâ of AI in his manner of rushing to embrace every available opportunity. OpenAI introduced a shopping feature for ChatGPT last year, and has walked back those plans in the last few weeks. Altman was opportunistic again when he struck a deal with the Pentagon, taking advantage of its fallout with the Anthropic, but later admitting that his own deal was âsloppy.â
Amodeiâs commercial success is what gave such weight to his ânoâ to the Pentagon over guarantees to not use Claude for autonomous weapons or spying on Americans. A struggling startup wouldnât have commanded the same attention and sparked the same public debate as one worth $380 billion.
That is one thing genuine competition can offer beyond pricing pressure: a greater chance of breaking the ideological groupthink of established players and forcing hard questions that monopolists rarely have to answer. Itâs hard to see Microsoft, Google or OpenAI rebuffing the Defense Department in quite the same way.
With any luck, that principle will extend into areas like consumer safety and terms of service for customers, shaping what AI becomes and adding some friction to the âmove fast, break thingsâ strategy that has fueled the boom. Competition is essential to healthy markets and, for the present in AI, there might be enough of it to make a difference.
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of âSupremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World.â
Meridiano
