Anthropic invests $50B in US AI infrastructure
72 comments
·November 12, 2025robotnikman
We still need to fix the problem with powering these Datacenters....
JumpCrisscross
> We still need to fix the problem with powering these Datacenters....
Not really. We need to insulate consumers from the market that is solving and will solve that problem. That's a financial engineering and policy problem. America is good at the first. We're bad at the second. That implies state and local initiatives should take the lead.
My proposal: one market for essential residential consumption, defined as the median household consumption per region [1]. (If you don't use your allocation, you should earn a rebate.) Above that, market price. Same for preferred commercial uses, e.g. retail and local government.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricit...
runako
There should be a tenure element to power access. The reductio is a well-funded adversary should not be able to buy all the power in a region just because they are able to pay more.
Our utilities are generally regulated, and have some mandate to provide power to residents. If a datacenter creates a sudden dislocation in the demand for power that causes massive unplanned CapEx by the utility, what is the argument in favor of longtime residents having to pay for that CapEx?
theultdev
the administration is allowing datacenters to be utilities and build their own power plants, nuclear or otherwise.
the excess can be sold to the grid.
it's really the only way forward. seems like a win/win.
joelthelion
> it's really the only way forward. seems like a win/win.
There is another way forward, which is not building these data centers, forcing AI companies to use power more efficiently, and use the excess energy production capacity towards the energy transition in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
It's not going to happen, at least not right now, but it's clearly what we ought to do. ChatGPT can wait.
JumpCrisscross
> forcing AI companies to use power more efficiently
How? Also, why? Why are datacentres the use to tamp down on versus other industrial and commercial uses?
This reminds me of California rationing residential water use so alfalfa farmers can flood their fields.
nradov
Why should they be treated differently than any other customer?
skybrian
Colocated power might be more efficient, depending on how it's done. It avoids transmission losses and allows the grid to be used for other purposes.
pureagave
I think you may be missing the whole national security part of the AI race. This isn't just about asking a computer what recipe you can cook tonight with the items in your fridge. In many ways it is similar to the race to build a nuclear bomb. We may individually not like that, but we might individually be best served to live in the nation that got there first.
theultdev
That's not a way forward, that's standing still.
I'm all for more efficient usage, and it's in AI companies best interest to do so to minimize costs.
...but it's a growing industry, it will need more power.
testing22321
Even better, don’t just “allow”, but force them to create power plants equal in size to their usage. Must be renewable.
theultdev
I don't care what they use. Nuclear preferred but whatever works for the area.
Natural gas is the main reason our emissions have gone down as it replaces coal.
Also I don't think forcing is necessary. These datacenters want to, why impose more regulations.
robotnikman
Oh nice, that basically solves the issue. I've been hearing horror stories of datacenters overloading existing grids and raising prices for the average person, If datacenters generate their own power that basically solves the issue.
Out here in AZ, solar combined with battery would be perfect for datacenters.
ericmay
"Allowing" doesn't necessarily translate into "doing". Many people are seeing higher energy prices which are at least in part or wholly due to data center loads on local power grids. In Ohio, for example, we just skated by with a ruling from our Public Utilities Commission which effectively required data centers to pay for their impact on local grids [1].
Additionally, while these data centers do provide some jobs, where states are giving them grants, loans, infrastructure improvement, or otherwise they are ultimately extractive developments (like parking lots) where the wealth flows out from states like Ohio and flows in to states where the CEOs and HQ sit (California, New York, etc.).
I can tell you that people in Ohio across the political spectrum are not happy. We are losing good farm land, utilizing water, and our power costs are going up for negligible benefits at best. But hey now our state representatives can say "Meta is coming to central Ohio". Meanwhile costs are going up and we still have to ship produce in from other countries and states.
If our representatives and governors office thought about this all for about 2 seconds they would require any data center development to include 2x the number of corporate jobs over a certain income threshold or else not approve the development. If the developers balk, then fine it's not like we want them anyway.
The Trump Administration (and for that matter probably any admin) isn't doing jack shit.
[1] https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/state/ohio-regulators-tu...
null
cactusplant7374
How many times has that happened so far?
theultdev
Google is working with Kairos Power for nuclear reactors at their datacenters.
Microsoft struck a deal with Three Mile Island to get a reactor up.
And Amazon is working with Talen Energy.
Might be others I missed.
thinkingtoilet
The real win/win would be to require them to build enough solar to power the operation.
nomel
> to build enough solar to power the operation
The most cost effective way to run a datacenter is pedal to the metal, 24/7. This is not appropriate for solar, which is why these companies are looking into power sources that are most cost effective when they run pedal to the metal, 24/7, like nuclear.
Gigachad
And then the entire energy grid collapses with the AI bubble.
null
Eufrat
Are there any more details on this investment? Do they have the hardware or even the power to ready support such growth?
catigula
>The project will create approximately 800 permanent jobs
For $50 billion?
I think there's a serious problem here.
AnimalMuppet
AI spending is more on hardware than on jobs. That shouldn't be too great a surprise.
$62 million per job does seem a bit more hardware-heavy than reasonable, though...
HardCodedBias
This is clearly aggressive.
Will this pan out? We don't know, no one knows. But this isn't "a scam" there is a plausible future where a large percentage of white collar (or dare I say it, blue collar) work will have an assistant and that assistant requires a considerable subscription (200/mo? 1000/mo?).
Interesting to see all of the leading labs in the West make this bet.
diamond559
12k a year out of your paycheck for an advanced Clippy "assistant"? Sorry, this is not plausible. Oh and by blue collar work do you mean done by walking talking robots? I bet you think we'll be flying cars to work w/in 5 years too huh. Oh yeah and when is your chatbot going to solve physics and cure cancer again? You ppl have lost your minds.
datadrivenangel
Actually yeah 12k a year better be really really good, because that can get you a lot of quality human. At 12k per year and $100/hour, that gets you 120 hours of time which means you get ~20 minutes per day, on average. Or if you get down to $33 an hour it's an hour a day.
miohtama
If it can format images in Microsoft Word without breaking the document, or fix Microsoft Excel formula issues everyone will be buying.
HardCodedBias
"12k a year out of your paycheck for an advanced Clippy "assistant"? Sorry, this is not plausible"
It's certainly possible. Will it actually happen? IDK.
HardCodedBias
I don't think it requires robots. Although that's possible too.
I think that HoloLens has a reasonable demonstration of how to assist blue collar work about 10 years ago (AFAIK it flopped). I would bet a dollar that similar technology augmented with LLMs could be useful to blue collar work.
cowpig
> Today, we are announcing a $50 billion investment in American computing infrastructure
> The project will create approximately 800 permanent jobs
Approximately $62.5 million per permanent job created!
keeganpoppen
but it’s private money? who gives a fuck about the $/job created? if anything, it’s a good thing that Anthropic can afford to do it because they can so efficiently use capital. at least, so far…
KaiserPro
$170k per buisness customer. That's not including existing debt and opex.
Good luck paying that back, especially as AI is basically commodity now.
eitally
Have you seen their 2025 growth curve (and projections)?
https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomyCharts/comments/1lwdwd6/anth...
sunir
Growth curves mean nothing if you're selling $0.90 dollars. You have to show a growth curve when price > cost. It's not even clear that value > cost.
I absolutely love Anthropic; but I am worried about the fiscal wall they will hit that will ratchet up my opex as they will need to steeply raise prices.
simonw
So the critical question here really is whether they are selling API access to their models for less than the unit cost it takes to serve them.
justapassenger
Are you saying that in next 10 years they'll make more money that there's an atoms in the universe?
KaiserPro
have you seen their cost curves and projections as well?
bangaladore
The area under that curve is quite a bit less than 50B.
diamond559
that is like 3 data point my man and you think you can project them just straight up forever and ever. this is bubble thinking.
null
DANmode
Over a decade?
Also,
> customers that each represent over $100,000 in run-rate revenue—has grown nearly sevenfold in the past year.
isn’t unconvincing.
KaiserPro
Lets put that quote in its full context, because its designed to sound much more impressive than it actually is.
> Anthropic serves more than 300,000 business customers, and our number of large accounts—customers that each represent over $100,000 in run-rate revenue—has grown nearly sevenfold in the past year.
Let me deconstruct that:
> Anthropic serves more than 300,000 business customers
Hard fact. No qualification on spend or activity, are they on trails or fully paid with contracts and minimum spend
> and our number of large accounts—customers that each represent over $100,000 in run-rate revenue
run-rate revenue is an extrapolation. (https://www.fool.com/terms/r/run-rate/) That could be buisnesses that trail anthropic for a month, spend 24K and think "fuck thats expensive" and stops spending. average that over 2 months, then times by 12, boom 100k account.
> has grown nearly sevenfold in the past year.
no starting base....
Its unconvincing, because its smoke and mirrors. Give me the numbers of paying customers, over time with revenue. Then show the opex/capex.
DANmode
How impulse-buy has business AI licensing got?
Is it really a surprise later, the cost?
olivermuty
None of this infra is worth anything more than five years from now.
EMM_386
How do you think computing companies work?
They buy hardware, replace it as the years go on, and continue doing business.
The investment isn't just in raw compute - they have to build buildings, pay staff, and other things. For the hardware and software - they just keep pace as all the other computing companies have to.
tootie
Also, 800 permanent employees is $62.5M/employee.
datadrivenangel
With the 2400 temporary employees it's $14M/job, which is very very capital intensive.
If trends continue, all investment in the economy will be directed by about 6 people at a big AI company, and what will money mean at that point?
The writing is on the (tomshardware.com) wall. Don't invest in AI. Invest in power, HDDs, GPUs, HVAC equipment, etc.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45896707