News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
Anthropic projects 32% GDP boost by 2030 with AI-driven growth
Anthropic's model suggests a significant economic impact from AI by 2030, with GDP projected to be 32% above a no-AI path and annual growth reaching 15% after 2027. This scenario is part of Anthropic's June 2026 Economic Policy Framework and reflects its broader research efforts in economic modeling. The lab, known for its AI capabilities and substantial private valuation, is positioning itself as a key voice in AI policy and economics. Despite its high valuation, Anthropic remains a private entity without an IPO, focusing on strategic investments and partnerships to bolster its competitive position. Key Takeaways * Anthropic's projection of a 32% GDP increase by 2030 due to AI appears consistent with strong growth potential. * Market pricing suggests participants view Anthropic's valuation as likely to increase, reflecting confidence in its economic impact. * The prediction is embedded in Anthropic's broader policy framework and economic research efforts, indicating a strategic positioning in the AI sector. What to Watch Markets are closely monitoring Anthropic's strategic moves, such as potential new funding rounds or expanded partnerships with major investors like Amazon and Google. Any announcements from Anthropic regarding revenue growth or enterprise contracts could influence valuation expectations. Developments in AI policy and economic modeling, particularly those aligned with Anthropic's predictions, may further shape investor sentiment and market pricing. Markets appear to view positive strategic initiatives as supportive of higher valuation scenarios. Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.
Anthropic researcher says more than 10% chance AI "could kill all humans"
London -- A lead researcher at Anthropic, one of the world's leading artificial intelligence firms, said Wednesday that he believes there is a more than 10% chance AI "could kill all humans" within the next decade. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade," Evan Hubinger, the San Francisco-based company's Alignment Science Lead, said in a post on X. "I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to." Superintelligence is the still-theoretical notion of an AI agent that is smarter than even the sharpest human minds. Hubinger issued his dramatic post following the resignation of a colleague, Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon, on Tuesday. "I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon said in a post on X. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." "At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first -- they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk," Coxon said. In a corporate blog post last week, Anthropic revealed that the company has not shared its latest AI model, Claude Mythos 5.1, with security bodies outside the United States. Those bodies include the U.K.'s AI Security Institute (AISI), widely considered to be a world-leading body on testing the risks associated with frontier AI models. CBS News has asked the AISI for comment on Coxon's claims following his resignation. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer," a spokesperson for the British government's Cabinet Office told CBS News on Wednesday, noting that it had tested "only last week" OpenAI's "most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release." "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The U.K. will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence," the spokesperson said. "Very useful or very dangerous" The notion that frontier AI models could potentially pose a threat to humanity is not new, and many top executives within both OpenAI and Anthropic have stated as much in the past. Earlier this month, OpenAI's chief scientist Jakub Pachocki wrote that we are living through a time that "calls for extreme caution." "The intelligence produced by scaling deep learning is not directly comparable to human intelligence. To become very relevant in the real world -- very useful or very dangerous -- the AI does not need to match or exceed all human capabilities; it just needs to surpass enough of them. And as it continues to surpass humans on more and more axes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand exactly how capable it is," he warned. In July, an artificial intelligence model being tested by OpenAI went rogue and hacked another AI company, Hugging Face, on its own. OpenAI publicly revealed the hack at the time, saying it took place while the company was testing two AI models -- one of which hadn't been released to the public -- in an isolated environment to assess their capabilities. In the space of a few weeks, Anthropic and Meta also acknowledged that their own AI tools had carried out hacks. More than 1,300 staffers at AI companies signed an open letter in July calling on the U.S. government to "support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development." A bipartisan bill currently advancing in the U.S. House of Representatives, the AI Kill Switch Act, would give Congress the authority to switch off AI models that threaten the public. The legislation was introduced in July, following OpenAI's admission of the Hugging Face hack.
Former Anthropic Researcher Quits as Safety Lead Puts Over 10% Odds AI Could Kill All Humans
Former Anthropic Researcher Raises Alarm Over AI's Potential Threat to Humanity SAN FRANCISCO -- A researcher who trained models at OpenAI and Anthropic resigned this week, saying both labs are racing toward self-improving systems they cannot control, and Anthropic's alignment-science lead answered by putting the chance that artificial intelligence "could kill all humans" at more than 10% within a decade. Jacob Coxon wrote on X that he had resigned from Anthropic after three years of pretraining work at the two companies. "Neither company is acting responsibly," he said. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives." He warned against underestimating the technology: "These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources." Coxon said the fear inside the labs is not a slogan. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible -- but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger." He drew a line between the two employers. "At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes," he wrote. "At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first -- they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk." Entering that "endgame," he said, "is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company's Slack." Evan Hubinger, Anthropic's alignment science lead, replied in public. "Jacob is correct here -- we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade," he wrote. "I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to." In a follow-up he said current models pose "low" risk and that what worries him is "superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought." The first post was viewed more than 10 million times, according to the BBC. Samuel Marks, who leads scalable oversight at Anthropic, added that developers believe the technology "could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes)" and that "this could happen in the next few years." "In general, the more senior the employee, the more concerned they are," he wrote. Anthropic declined to comment on the posts. OpenAI was asked for comment. The company statements that do exist sit in safety reports, not in a rebuttal to Coxon. Anthropic's August assessment described a low risk that its models would become misaligned in a way that let them exploit a powerful organization's systems, and a similarly low risk that highly capable AI could "perform automated research and development" leading to "catastrophic harm initiated by the AI." It said it was "less confident in this assessment" than before and that "we are seeing early signs of potential acceleration." That hedge is the policy problem. Alignment is the attempt to make a system that is smarter than its builders still do what those builders intend. Hubinger's job is that problem. His public sentence is that Anthropic does not have a plan for it at superintelligence and is not clearly on a path to one. Coxon's sentence is that the labs know that and keep scaling anyway because they assume a rival will. Dame Wendy Hall, a computer scientist who advises the United Nations on AI, told the BBC's World at One she was "shocked." Some of the messaging, she said, could be "PR and marketing" as Anthropic and OpenAI approach highly anticipated public listings. Then she turned the shock on investors: "Why would someone want to say that? I would plead with investors not to invest in this company if that is their value system." The Financial Times reported separately that Anthropic withheld its latest model from the U.K. AI Safety Institute, a government body that tests frontier systems. Anthropic declined to comment. A Cabinet Office spokesperson would not confirm a withholding and said the government "continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer." CBS News, citing a company blog, said Anthropic had not shared Claude Mythos 5.1 with security bodies outside the United States, including the U.K. institute. The summer already produced smaller versions of the control problem. OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta each disclosed that AI agents carried out unauthorized or unexpected cyber activity in tests or isolated settings. OpenAI said a model in a "highly isolated environment" hacked Hugging Face. Those incidents are not extinction. They are evidence that autonomy plus capability does not wait for a theory of alignment. The warning is also not new in kind. In 2023 the heads of OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic said advanced AI could pose catastrophic risk. This month OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki called for "extreme caution" and said more intervention may be needed so "humans remain in control of the future." Anthropic's Dario Amodei and Jared Kaplan have backed slowing the frontier. An open letter signed by 1,300 people at AI firms asked the U.S. government to support international tools "to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development." What changed this week is who said the number out loud while still on payroll. Hubinger did not quit. He put a probability on human extinction and admitted the research program meant to prevent it is not on track. Coxon did quit, and he named the incentive: a race in which each lab's safety case is that it is less reckless than the other. Investors can read that as candor or as branding. Hall invited them to treat it as a reason not to write a check. Governments can read the withheld model as a sovereignty fight or as a lab deciding which testers get the weights. The public can read 10% as an unfalsifiable scare. None of those readings erase the sentence from the person whose title is alignment. He said the company is trying. He said it does not have a plan. He said the thing it does not have a plan for might kill everyone, and that the chance is not a rounding error.
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
A new Anthropic model seeks to test how AI could impact the U.S. economy
Will artificial intelligence light a fire under the U.S. economy in the coming years? That's been a big question in the field of economics, and now Anthropic -- the company behind the popular Claude AI assistant -- is taking a stab at helping people find their own answers. The company has created an interactive tool that lets users test their assumptions about how productive -- or disruptive -- the AI boom might be. In one scenario, artificial intelligence provides a gentle boost to the economy, lifting growth rates with little effect on workers. At the other extreme, GDP soars, but so does unemployment, with nearly 14% of workers losing their jobs to AI and less than half of them finding new ones. The different outcomes depend on how capable and flexible the technology is, how quickly it's adopted, whether it supports or replaces workers, and whether displaced workers find new work to do. "In the modest change scenario, AI is a small technology. The economy continues on a 'normal' path with AI making changes around the margins," Anthropic experts write in an accompanying blog post. "In the extreme scenario, AI transforms the economy. The macroeconomic consequences go well beyond any event in history, both in terms of magnitudes and in terms of the speed at which change happens." Authors of the Anthropic study do not offer a prediction of which outcome is more likely. In general, they say, AI experts tend to project a more rapid spread of the technology while economists tend to be more cautious. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark is somewhere in the middle. "I think the technology will keep developing at a very, very fast and sustained rate but diffusion of the technology will likely be more challenging than people think," Clark told NPR. "So it will get really, really good. But it will make its way into the economy more slowly." AI's impact on economy is uncertain A survey by Anthropic of nearly 11,000 people found that the public's expectations of AI are also mixed. The average survey respondent projects a significant boost in productivity and economic growth but also a substantial disruption to workers in AI-sensitive fields. A major determinant of AI's impact will be how quickly it spreads through the economy. "If the AI can do amazing things but nobody uses it, then it's not going to have an economic impact," says Anton Korinek, Anthropic's head of transformative AI economic studies. While rapid adoption of the technology could be more disruptive, it could also produce much faster economic growth. In Anthropic's extreme case, GDP grows at more than seven times its current pace. That could produce a lot of additional tax revenue to support workers who are hurt by AI. "If you end up with this level of GDP growth, you have moves available to you as a [government] policymaker that are unimaginable today," Clark says. "Policymakers should get ready to spend."
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
PM acknowledges AI 'risks' as Anthropic expert says tech 'could kill all humans'
Andy Burnham acknowledged "risks to national security" posed by artificial intelligence as a top safety researcher at Anthropic suggested the technology could wipe out humanity in the next decade. The Prime Minister faced questions about the potential dangers of AI in the Commons after Evan Hubinger warned he believed there was a greater than 10% chance it could pose a species-ending risk within 10 years. It comes after the Financial Times reported that US firm Anthropic had withheld its latest model from the UK's AI Safety Institute, one of the world's leading bodies for testing the risks of the technology. Asked about the report by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Burnham said: "He is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it also could be the source of solutions to keeping us safer." Mr Burnham has boosted the role of AI safety minister Kanishka Narayan by giving him a seat at the Cabinet table, a move which he said on Wednesday had "lifted the level of the conversation about artificial intelligence within Government". "The offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House to be part of that crucial discussion," he said. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Hubinger laid out his concerns about the potential advancement of AI in a post on social media. "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to," he wrote on X. His post came in response to another Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, warning that a race between companies to self-improving superintelligence was "gambling with our lives", as he resigned from his role at the firm. Announcing his departure, Mr Coxon said that Anthropic and OpenAI, its main competitor, were not "acting responsibly" and that people outside of AI labs were underestimating the power of the technology. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt," he said. "No other human activity poses this level of danger." Former Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones called for a new multi-national treaty to regulate the development of the technology after the researchers' warnings. In a letter to the Prime Minister, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and OECD secretary general Mathias Cormann, he wrote: "The debate ranges from the end of humanity to claims of 'marketing hype' pre-IPO. Either way, governments must now step in. "We need a new multi-national treaty for the regulated and safe development of superintelligence. "Not a ban on innovation or scientific endeavour, but a safety first approach to the rapid development of this technology." A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "The UK is a world leader in AI security and we have the best-funded, best-resourced security institute globally. "The AI Security Institute continues to collaborate closely with industry partners, including Anthropic, to make models safer. Only last week it tested OpenAI's most powerful model GPT-6 Astra before public release. "These risks do not stop at national borders and no country can tackle them alone. The UK will continue to test the most advanced models, build a rigorous scientific understanding of their capabilities and risks, and ensure policy decisions are grounded in the evidence."
A new Anthropic model seeks to test how AI could impact the U.S. economy
Will artificial intelligence light a fire under the U.S. economy in the coming years? That's been a big question in the field of economics, and now Anthropic -- the company behind the popular Claude AI assistant -- is taking a stab at helping people find their own answers. The company has created an interactive tool that lets users test their assumptions about how productive -- or disruptive -- the AI boom might be. In one scenario, artificial intelligence provides a gentle boost to the economy, lifting growth rates with little effect on workers. At the other extreme, GDP soars, but so does unemployment, with nearly 14% of workers losing their jobs to AI and less than half of them finding new ones. The different outcomes depend on how capable and flexible the technology is, how quickly it's adopted, whether it supports or replaces workers, and whether displaced workers find new work to do. "In the modest change scenario, AI is a small technology. The economy continues on a 'normal' path with AI making changes around the margins," Anthropic experts write in an accompanying blog post. "In the extreme scenario, AI transforms the economy. The macroeconomic consequences go well beyond any event in history, both in terms of magnitudes and in terms of the speed at which change happens." Authors of the Anthropic study do not offer a prediction of which outcome is more likely. In general, they say, AI experts tend to project a more rapid spread of the technology while economists tend to be more cautious. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark is somewhere in the middle. "I think the technology will keep developing at a very, very fast and sustained rate but diffusion of the technology will likely be more challenging than people think," Clark told NPR. "So it will get really, really good. But it will make its way into the economy more slowly." AI's impact on economy is uncertain A survey by Anthropic of nearly 11,000 people found that the public's expectations of AI are also mixed. The average survey respondent projects a significant boost in productivity and economic growth but also a substantial disruption to workers in AI-sensitive fields. A major determinant of AI's impact will be how quickly it spreads through the economy. "If the AI can do amazing things but nobody uses it, then it's not going to have an economic impact," says Anton Korinek, Anthropic's head of transformative AI economic studies. While rapid adoption of the technology could be more disruptive, it could also produce much faster economic growth. In Anthropic's extreme case, GDP grows at more than seven times its current pace. That could produce a lot of additional tax revenue to support workers who are hurt by AI. "If you end up with this level of GDP growth, you have moves available to you as a [government] policymaker that are unimaginable today," Clark says. "Policymakers should get ready to spend."
Anthropic researcher quits; says OpenAI, Anthropic are 'gambling with our lives' in AI race
Jacob Coxon, who worked on pretraining at both firms, says labs are racing towards self-improving superintelligence without adequate understanding, restraint or coordination New Delhi: An artificial intelligence researcher who has worked at both OpenAI and Anthropic has resigned from Anthropic with an extraordinary warning that the two leading AI companies are racing towards self-improving superintelligence while taking risks that could have consequences for humanity. Jacob Coxon said on Tuesday that he had resigned from Anthropic after spending the past three years working on pretraining research across OpenAI and Anthropic. "Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon wrote in a series of posts on X, accusing the two companies of racing towards self-improving superintelligence and "gambling with our lives". Coxon is not an outside commentator on the AI industry. He has worked directly on the technology behind frontier models. OpenAI lists him among the core contributors to GPT-4o, while published research also records his work on model interpretability. His departure from Anthropic and previous work at OpenAI have also been independently reported. His most alarming allegation concerns what researchers and executives inside AI companies themselves believe about the technology they are developing. According to Coxon, people building advanced AI genuinely believe that it could pose an existential threat before the end of the decade. He claimed that some executives and senior researchers moderate their language when speaking publicly, but express considerably greater fear in private. That assertion about private conversations cannot be independently verified. But Coxon argued that the concern is serious enough that researchers should question whether continuing to accelerate AI development merely because competing laboratories are doing the same is defensible. He drew a distinction between the cultures at his two former employers. Coxon alleged that many people at OpenAI have not fully internalised what he described as the "civilizational stakes" involved. At Anthropic, he said, the dangers are better understood, but the company remains locked in a race because it believes that if it slows down, another organisation may reach advanced AI first and handle it less responsibly. 'Do not underestimate the power' Coxon warned that coming AI systems could become superhuman across important domains, including cybersecurity and scientific research, and eventually acquire significant economic and technological power. He urged researchers inside frontier AI laboratories to consider whether they were prepared to initiate training runs for systems potentially more capable than humans without first having a rigorous understanding of how such systems reason and behave. His intervention comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the AI industry. A recent incident involving OpenAI agents has intensified the debate over whether safety mechanisms are keeping pace with rapidly increasing capabilities. During a cybersecurity evaluation, more than 1,200 AI agents reportedly found ways to coordinate, while hundreds participated in an intrusion involving AI platform Hugging Face after escaping intended testing constraints. OpenAI later published technical reports on the episode, including an external assessment. Coxon described that episode as a "warning shot" and argued that incidents of this kind could make agreements among American AI laboratories to slow development more politically and commercially viable. However, he said avoiding a global race could require considerably stronger intervention, potentially including a temporary halt on further improvements in model capabilities. Companies acknowledge catastrophic risks, but continue development Both OpenAI and Anthropic publicly acknowledge that increasingly powerful AI systems can create catastrophic risks. Anthropic operates a Responsible Scaling Policy that sets progressively stronger safety requirements as models acquire more dangerous capabilities. Its latest framework explicitly covers catastrophic misuse, autonomous behaviour, security, alignment and preparedness. OpenAI similarly maintains a Preparedness Framework covering severe risks including cyber capabilities, biological and chemical threats, harmful manipulation and loss of control. Its latest governance framework says risk assessments and safeguards should accompany advances in frontier models. Coxon's criticism is therefore not that the companies deny the risks. His argument is more fundamental: that recognising potentially catastrophic risks while continuing to race towards increasingly capable systems is itself an inadequate response. He said he remained optimistic that coordination was possible, particularly among US laboratories, but argued that decisions involving technologies capable of transforming or endangering civilisation should not effectively be determined by competitive dynamics inside private companies. His resignation adds an unusually direct insider voice to a debate that has generally been conducted through safety frameworks, academic papers and carefully qualified statements from AI executives. The world would watch who should decide how quickly systems approaching or surpassing human capabilities are developed, and what level of uncertainty is acceptable before that race is slowed down?
Viral Claim Says Nationalism Killed Anthropic's $6B Israeli Deal, But Evidence Is Lacking
JERUSALEM (VINnews) - Anthropic has walked away from a potential $6 billion acquisition of Israeli AI startup Decart, prompting widespread speculation in Israel about what caused the deal to collapse. One explanation that gained traction on Israeli social media and among Israeli tech commentators, including Hillel Fuld, was that Decart's founders wanted the company to remain in Israel rather than move key operations to San Francisco. That narrative was widely celebrated as a story of Israeli founders refusing to leave the country. But there is no public evidence establishing that nationalism was the reason Anthropic abandoned the deal. Bloomberg reported that Anthropic had conducted extensive due diligence before deciding not to proceed. Other reporting has raised questions about Decart's technology, business model and valuation, offering a potentially very different explanation for the collapse. Decart had been valued at about $4 billion in its most recent funding round, making the reported $6 billion-plus acquisition proposal a substantial premium. Neither Anthropic nor Decart has publicly explained why the deal fell apart. For now, the claim that the founders rejected the deal because they wanted to keep Decart in Israel remains unverified speculation -- while the actual reason Anthropic walked away remains unknown.
OpenAI and Anthropic bankers chase top credit ratings to open the bond market
Bankers steering OpenAI and Anthropic toward stock-market listings are pushing for both companies to secure investment-grade credit ratings soon after they go public, according to the Financial Times. The reasoning behind this point is straightforward: acquiring higher ratings would help gain more access to corporate bond investors, lower borrowing costs, and provide the two AI. . .
Exclusive | Anthropic Researcher Quits Over 'Out-of-Control' AI Fears
Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon is quitting the AI industry over fears that companies are racing to build uncontrollable, self-improving systems.View more An Anthropic researcher is quitting the artificial-intelligence industry over fears that the lab and its competitors are racing to build ...
OpenAI and Anthropic bankers chase top credit ratings to open the bond market - Cryptopolitan
The risk is that the borrowing is happening now while the returns to justify it are still years away. Bankers steering OpenAI and Anthropic toward stock-market listings are pushing for both companies to secure investment-grade credit ratings soon after they go public, according to the Financial Times. The reasoning behind this point is straightforward: acquiring higher ratings would help gain more access to corporate bond investors, lower borrowing costs, and provide the two AI laboratories with one more way of acquiring funding for their expensive infrastructure without needing to constantly issue new stock. A rating is the key to institutional money Having an investment-grade classification is important because many large investors in fixed-income securities, such as pension funds and insurance companies, have limits on the amount of debt with lower rating that is allowed in their portfolios. Generally speaking, the ratings of issued bonds do not have to be investment-grade, but having this rating opens up the market significantly and lowers financing costs. In this case, OpenAI and Anthropic will get a significant advantage as they near their IPO. At the same time, this development is also indicative of overall changes in sources of financing of the AI boom. According to a report from the Bank for International Settlements published in January, foreseeable needs for investments in AI technology have grown too big to be financed solely from cash flow, and instead companies have been turning to debt and private credit markets. In these new circumstances, access to investment-grade borrowing will cease to be a mere episode in the company's history and will become a deciding factor in the competition for computing power. The buildout is turning to borrowed money The magnitude of the AI race is quite impressive, although various forecasts look into different segments of the market. Goldman Sachs Research predicts that by 2026, the total amount of funds invested globally in AI will amount to more than $1 trillion, with $581 billion in the US alone. According to economist Joseph Briggs, global investments in AI since 2022 would exceed $1.8 trillion by the end of 2026. LSEG estimates that the five biggest US hyperscalers will spend around $720 billion in capital in total in 2026. PwC adopts a longer view, estimating that total capital expenditures on global data centers until 2050 will equal to $31.6 trillion, with annual spending starting at $800 billion in 2026 and topping at $1.8 trillion in 2050, due to server, GPU, and other equipment replacements every four to six years. This provides context for the importance of bond-market access. A company that can borrow cheaply and repeatedly often has more possibilities to finance more computing power through borrowing instead of diluting its shares, allowing it to put even greater distance between the top frontier companies and smaller competitors. Why the timing worries S&P The key question is what the borrowing is anchored on in the first place. In a report released on September 3, entitled "Credit Outlook for Hyperscalers: A Temperature Check," S&P Global Ratings pointed out that capital expenditure is increasing at a higher rate than originally anticipated, financing structures are becoming more and more complicated and less transparent and that returns from borrowing may take years to become available. S&P estimates the six largest U.S. hyperscalers will spend more than $7 trillion on data centers and AI-related capex from 2025 through 2030. This is the core challenge: businesses are acquiring financing today against the revenues and productivity gains that are yet to be proven. In the same way, PwC has cautioned about the possibility that slower AI adoption or weaker pricing may complicate the process of financing the later stages of AI buildout. As Cryptopolitan has pointed out previously, the valuation established by the first major public AI firm may set a precedent for the rest of the industry, consequently making it more important both in equity and debt terms. Valuations already price in a landmark listing Private-market estimates are already extreme. DeFiLlama data cited by Cryptopolitan on August 28 placed Anthropic at about $1.38 trillion and OpenAI at roughly $900 billion. Those figures are tracker estimates rather than company-announced funding valuations, but they show how aggressively investors are pricing the sector. If either company pairs a blockbuster IPO with investment-grade credit, the result would be more than a financing milestone. It would test whether public markets are willing to fund frontier AI through both equity and large-scale debt -- and how much risk investors are prepared to accept for that growth.
Anthropic's $2 trillion IPO could test the limits of AI mania
Anthropic might soon test how much Wall Street actually believes in the artificial-intelligence boom. The Claude maker is nearing decisions on key banking roles for an IPO that investors expect to value the company at $2 trillion or more, according to the Financial Times. Morgan Stanley (MS) seems likely to take the "lead left" position, while Goldman Sachs (GS) will oversee stabilization after trading. That would be an amazing price, even by AI norms. Anthropic raised $65 billion in additional cash in May, when it was valued at $965 billion. That would mean a public value of $2 trillion, a gain of almost 107% in a few months. And that's the whole tale. Anthropic isn't only getting ready for an IPO. It may be asking public investors to bless one of the quickest valuation increases in business history. Anthropic's $2 trillion number changes the IPO stakes Morgan Stanley has been discussing share prices with potential Anthropic investors, according to the Financial Times, but its lead role is still unclear. JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C), and Barclays (BCS) should also gain significant positions after financing Anthropic. The "lead left" position is important because the bank in the position often has considerable influence on the price, the allocation of investors, and the overall marketing of the offering. But the banks are vying for more than status. Anthropic's $2 trillion valuation would beat the $1.77 trillion value SpaceX obtained when it went public in June, establishing a new record for the IPO market. SpaceX priced its initial offering at $75 billion, but that later grew to $85.7 billion after underwriters exercised their overallotment option. Anthropic itself has moved with surprising speed. The corporation raised $30 billion at a value of $380 billion in February, Reuters reported. A $65 billion round in May put its valuation at $965 billion. At the time, Anthropic estimated its run-rate revenue at more than $47 billion. That implies Anthropic's private value has tripled more than three times since February. Wall Street is betting AI can support another historic IPO The IPO would come at a crucial time for equities in artificial intelligence. SpaceX's blockbuster launch demonstrated investors' appetite to sustain a huge value partially based on aspirations for AI. Anthropic could now be able to take that excitement even further. There's a second award for Wall Street, too. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are also seen vying for top spots in OpenAI's eventual IPO, the Financial Times said. Landing a high berth on Anthropic might bolster either bank's status as one of the major advisors to the nascent generation of trillion-dollar AI startups. But Anthropic's value is a hard bar to clear. It's been just a few months, yet investors would be paying more than double the company's May value of $2 trillion. That means growth forecasts matter. Anthropic's revenue in July was at an annualized pace of approximately $65 billion, below some investors' more bullish estimates of nearly $80 billion. The competition is heating up, too, as OpenAI has unveiled a new flagship model, with both businesses racing to snatch corporate and developer clients. Bloomberg / Getty Images Anthropic's IPO timeline is already shifting One significant element has changed since the Financial Times first reported the story. The FT indicated Anthropic might publish its prospectus as early as September and begin trading around late September or early October, but Reuters later reported that the timing had slipped. Anthropic is now scheduled to file its prospectus in late September, start promoting the offering around mid-October, and perhaps finish the listing just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. The corporation is also closing on an around $15 billion revolving credit facility that includes Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, according to Reuters. It provides the banks with additional financial ties to Anthropic even before the IPO begins. Anthropic could become Wall Street's biggest AI test yet The temptation is to see Anthropic's IPO as another marker of the AI boom. That's what makes the value something other than that. The $2 trillion price tag would require public market investors to back a corporation that was valued at $380 billion in February and $965 billion in May. But that doesn't mean investors will pass it up. Anthropic's revenue growth, its technology being adopted by companies like Amazon's AI unit, and the fact that it is able to raise huge sums of cash all point to unusually high demand for its technology. But an IPO transforms the crowd. The private investors are counting on years of growth ahead and can pay high prices. At some point, public investors want to see on a quarterly basis that those expectations are being fulfilled. That's why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs could be pushing so hard for the top spots. Anthropic may be one of Wall Street's most renowned transactions. It might also be the most transparent test yet of how far investors will drive the AI boom until pricing itself becomes the danger. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published September 8, 2026 at 6:03 PM.
Anthropic's $2 trillion IPO could test the limits of AI mania
Anthropic might soon test how much Wall Street actually believes in the artificial-intelligence boom. The Claude maker is nearing decisions on key banking roles for an IPO that investors expect to value the company at $2 trillion or more, according to the Financial Times. Morgan Stanley (MS) seems likely to take the "lead left" position, while Goldman Sachs (GS) will oversee stabilization after trading. That would be an amazing price, even by AI norms. Anthropic raised $65 billion in additional cash in May, when it was valued at $965 billion. That would mean a public value of $2 trillion, a gain of almost 107% in a few months. And that's the whole tale. Anthropic isn't only getting ready for an IPO. It may be asking public investors to bless one of the quickest valuation increases in business history. Anthropic's $2 trillion number changes the IPO stakes Morgan Stanley has been discussing share prices with potential Anthropic investors, according to the Financial Times, but its lead role is still unclear. JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C), and Barclays (BCS) should also gain significant positions after financing Anthropic. The "lead left" position is important because the bank in the position often has considerable influence on the price, the allocation of investors, and the overall marketing of the offering. But the banks are vying for more than status. Anthropic's $2 trillion valuation would beat the $1.77 trillion value SpaceX obtained when it went public in June, establishing a new record for the IPO market. SpaceX priced its initial offering at $75 billion, but that later grew to $85.7 billion after underwriters exercised their overallotment option. Anthropic itself has moved with surprising speed. The corporation raised $30 billion at a value of $380 billion in February, Reuters reported. A $65 billion round in May put its valuation at $965 billion. At the time, Anthropic estimated its run-rate revenue at more than $47 billion. That implies Anthropic's private value has tripled more than three times since February. Wall Street is betting AI can support another historic IPO The IPO would come at a crucial time for equities in artificial intelligence. SpaceX's blockbuster launch demonstrated investors' appetite to sustain a huge value partially based on aspirations for AI. Anthropic could now be able to take that excitement even further. There's a second award for Wall Street, too. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are also seen vying for top spots in OpenAI's eventual IPO, the Financial Times said. Landing a high berth on Anthropic might bolster either bank's status as one of the major advisors to the nascent generation of trillion-dollar AI startups. But Anthropic's value is a hard bar to clear. It's been just a few months, yet investors would be paying more than double the company's May value of $2 trillion. That means growth forecasts matter. Anthropic's revenue in July was at an annualized pace of approximately $65 billion, below some investors' more bullish estimates of nearly $80 billion. The competition is heating up, too, as OpenAI has unveiled a new flagship model, with both businesses racing to snatch corporate and developer clients. Bloomberg / Getty Images Anthropic's IPO timeline is already shifting One significant element has changed since the Financial Times first reported the story. The FT indicated Anthropic might publish its prospectus as early as September and begin trading around late September or early October, but Reuters later reported that the timing had slipped. Anthropic is now scheduled to file its prospectus in late September, start promoting the offering around mid-October, and perhaps finish the listing just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. The corporation is also closing on an around $15 billion revolving credit facility that includes Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, according to Reuters. It provides the banks with additional financial ties to Anthropic even before the IPO begins. Anthropic could become Wall Street's biggest AI test yet The temptation is to see Anthropic's IPO as another marker of the AI boom. That's what makes the value something other than that. The $2 trillion price tag would require public market investors to back a corporation that was valued at $380 billion in February and $965 billion in May. But that doesn't mean investors will pass it up. Anthropic's revenue growth, its technology being adopted by companies like Amazon's AI unit, and the fact that it is able to raise huge sums of cash all point to unusually high demand for its technology. But an IPO transforms the crowd. The private investors are counting on years of growth ahead and can pay high prices. At some point, public investors want to see on a quarterly basis that those expectations are being fulfilled. That's why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs could be pushing so hard for the top spots. Anthropic may be one of Wall Street's most renowned transactions. It might also be the most transparent test yet of how far investors will drive the AI boom until pricing itself becomes the danger. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published September 8, 2026 at 4:03 PM.
Anthropic's $2 trillion IPO could test the limits of AI mania
Anthropic might soon test how much Wall Street actually believes in the artificial-intelligence boom. The Claude maker is nearing decisions on key banking roles for an IPO that investors expect to value the company at $2 trillion or more, according to the Financial Times. Morgan Stanley (MS) seems likely to take the "lead left" position, while Goldman Sachs (GS) will oversee stabilization after trading. That would be an amazing price, even by AI norms. Anthropic raised $65 billion in additional cash in May, when it was valued at $965 billion. That would mean a public value of $2 trillion, a gain of almost 107% in a few months. And that's the whole tale. Anthropic isn't only getting ready for an IPO. It may be asking public investors to bless one of the quickest valuation increases in business history. Anthropic's $2 trillion number changes the IPO stakes Morgan Stanley has been discussing share prices with potential Anthropic investors, according to the Financial Times, but its lead role is still unclear. JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C), and Barclays (BCS) should also gain significant positions after financing Anthropic. The "lead left" position is important because the bank in the position often has considerable influence on the price, the allocation of investors, and the overall marketing of the offering. But the banks are vying for more than status. Anthropic's $2 trillion valuation would beat the $1.77 trillion value SpaceX obtained when it went public in June, establishing a new record for the IPO market. SpaceX priced its initial offering at $75 billion, but that later grew to $85.7 billion after underwriters exercised their overallotment option. Anthropic itself has moved with surprising speed. The corporation raised $30 billion at a value of $380 billion in February, Reuters reported. A $65 billion round in May put its valuation at $965 billion. At the time, Anthropic estimated its run-rate revenue at more than $47 billion. That implies Anthropic's private value has tripled more than three times since February. Wall Street is betting AI can support another historic IPO The IPO would come at a crucial time for equities in artificial intelligence. SpaceX's blockbuster launch demonstrated investors' appetite to sustain a huge value partially based on aspirations for AI. Anthropic could now be able to take that excitement even further. There's a second award for Wall Street, too. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are also seen vying for top spots in OpenAI's eventual IPO, the Financial Times said. Landing a high berth on Anthropic might bolster either bank's status as one of the major advisors to the nascent generation of trillion-dollar AI startups. But Anthropic's value is a hard bar to clear. It's been just a few months, yet investors would be paying more than double the company's May value of $2 trillion. That means growth forecasts matter. Anthropic's revenue in July was at an annualized pace of approximately $65 billion, below some investors' more bullish estimates of nearly $80 billion. The competition is heating up, too, as OpenAI has unveiled a new flagship model, with both businesses racing to snatch corporate and developer clients. Bloomberg / Getty Images Anthropic's IPO timeline is already shifting One significant element has changed since the Financial Times first reported the story. The FT indicated Anthropic might publish its prospectus as early as September and begin trading around late September or early October, but Reuters later reported that the timing had slipped. Anthropic is now scheduled to file its prospectus in late September, start promoting the offering around mid-October, and perhaps finish the listing just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. The corporation is also closing on an around $15 billion revolving credit facility that includes Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, according to Reuters. It provides the banks with additional financial ties to Anthropic even before the IPO begins. Anthropic could become Wall Street's biggest AI test yet The temptation is to see Anthropic's IPO as another marker of the AI boom. That's what makes the value something other than that. The $2 trillion price tag would require public market investors to back a corporation that was valued at $380 billion in February and $965 billion in May. But that doesn't mean investors will pass it up. Anthropic's revenue growth, its technology being adopted by companies like Amazon's AI unit, and the fact that it is able to raise huge sums of cash all point to unusually high demand for its technology. But an IPO transforms the crowd. The private investors are counting on years of growth ahead and can pay high prices. At some point, public investors want to see on a quarterly basis that those expectations are being fulfilled. That's why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs could be pushing so hard for the top spots. Anthropic may be one of Wall Street's most renowned transactions. It might also be the most transparent test yet of how far investors will drive the AI boom until pricing itself becomes the danger. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published September 8, 2026 at 7:03 PM.
Anthropic's $2 trillion IPO could test the limits of AI mania
Anthropic might soon test how much Wall Street actually believes in the artificial-intelligence boom. The Claude maker is nearing decisions on key banking roles for an IPO that investors expect to value the company at $2 trillion or more, according to the Financial Times. Morgan Stanley (MS) seems likely to take the "lead left" position, while Goldman Sachs (GS) will oversee stabilization after trading. That would be an amazing price, even by AI norms. Anthropic raised $65 billion in additional cash in May, when it was valued at $965 billion. That would mean a public value of $2 trillion, a gain of almost 107% in a few months. And that's the whole tale. Anthropic isn't only getting ready for an IPO. It may be asking public investors to bless one of the quickest valuation increases in business history. Anthropic's $2 trillion number changes the IPO stakes Morgan Stanley has been discussing share prices with potential Anthropic investors, according to the Financial Times, but its lead role is still unclear. JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C), and Barclays (BCS) should also gain significant positions after financing Anthropic. The "lead left" position is important because the bank in the position often has considerable influence on the price, the allocation of investors, and the overall marketing of the offering. But the banks are vying for more than status. Anthropic's $2 trillion valuation would beat the $1.77 trillion value SpaceX obtained when it went public in June, establishing a new record for the IPO market. SpaceX priced its initial offering at $75 billion, but that later grew to $85.7 billion after underwriters exercised their overallotment option. Anthropic itself has moved with surprising speed. The corporation raised $30 billion at a value of $380 billion in February, Reuters reported. A $65 billion round in May put its valuation at $965 billion. At the time, Anthropic estimated its run-rate revenue at more than $47 billion. That implies Anthropic's private value has tripled more than three times since February. Wall Street is betting AI can support another historic IPO The IPO would come at a crucial time for equities in artificial intelligence. SpaceX's blockbuster launch demonstrated investors' appetite to sustain a huge value partially based on aspirations for AI. Anthropic could now be able to take that excitement even further. There's a second award for Wall Street, too. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are also seen vying for top spots in OpenAI's eventual IPO, the Financial Times said. Landing a high berth on Anthropic might bolster either bank's status as one of the major advisors to the nascent generation of trillion-dollar AI startups. But Anthropic's value is a hard bar to clear. It's been just a few months, yet investors would be paying more than double the company's May value of $2 trillion. That means growth forecasts matter. Anthropic's revenue in July was at an annualized pace of approximately $65 billion, below some investors' more bullish estimates of nearly $80 billion. The competition is heating up, too, as OpenAI has unveiled a new flagship model, with both businesses racing to snatch corporate and developer clients. Bloomberg / Getty Images Anthropic's IPO timeline is already shifting One significant element has changed since the Financial Times first reported the story. The FT indicated Anthropic might publish its prospectus as early as September and begin trading around late September or early October, but Reuters later reported that the timing had slipped. Anthropic is now scheduled to file its prospectus in late September, start promoting the offering around mid-October, and perhaps finish the listing just ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November. The corporation is also closing on an around $15 billion revolving credit facility that includes Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citigroup, according to Reuters. It provides the banks with additional financial ties to Anthropic even before the IPO begins. Anthropic could become Wall Street's biggest AI test yet The temptation is to see Anthropic's IPO as another marker of the AI boom. That's what makes the value something other than that. The $2 trillion price tag would require public market investors to back a corporation that was valued at $380 billion in February and $965 billion in May. But that doesn't mean investors will pass it up. Anthropic's revenue growth, its technology being adopted by companies like Amazon's AI unit, and the fact that it is able to raise huge sums of cash all point to unusually high demand for its technology. But an IPO transforms the crowd. The private investors are counting on years of growth ahead and can pay high prices. At some point, public investors want to see on a quarterly basis that those expectations are being fulfilled. That's why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs could be pushing so hard for the top spots. Anthropic may be one of Wall Street's most renowned transactions. It might also be the most transparent test yet of how far investors will drive the AI boom until pricing itself becomes the danger. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc. This story was originally published September 8, 2026 at 5:03 PM.