We've also heard plenty of stories from companies like Uber about a need to set a limit on their token spending because they were spending so much on Anthropic. That's a solid sign that the revenue numbers are real.
What Uber and other companies said is that the money they spent didn't generate the expected value they were promised. If it had generated $2 for every $1 spent, then Uber would be spending with no limits.
The lack of demonstrable return on investment means there is a ceiling to the market size, and profit is capped as cheaper models and self hosted open source models limit the amount flagship models can charge.
Long way to go till market saturation though so they will grow for foreseeable, but its a quandary of how much they spend on R&D vs giving future shareholders dividends.
Shouldn't they have set that per-employee budget to zero instead?
(I dug up the original source for that Uber doubts the ROI story a few months ago, it's a lot weaker than the headlines about it suggested: https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/27/product-market-fit/#th...)
For the AI companies to IPO at the money they want, they have to promise that they are going to be worth many multiples more of that value.
But currently they are spending hundreds of billions and despite this their models are not light years ahead of each other, or of the companies with much lower budgets and compute power.
What they claim they can offer in future profits is subject to considerable debate.
It's in the interests of VC's and their underlying rich investors to hype it ip, IPO and bank the cold hard cash.
Anthropic thinks it's worth more than insuring all US workers AND putting roof over their heads. AI sector thinks its worth magnitude more in aggregate. If they fully displace people, i.e. untied to headcount eventually then sure, but if not, based on what Uber pays, AI is basically worth as much as insurance.