EDIT: Found a better source than a gambling site's social media.
Kinda funny remembering how many HN comments I've read in the last few months insisting "Anthropic is profitable now" because of those cherry picked numbers for one quarter.
https://www.reuters.com/business/anthropic-recorded-net-loss...
Their revenue "more than doubled from the first quarter to $11.6 billion in the second quarter" which is less than almost tripling so first quarter revenue might've been $11.6B/2.5 ≈ $4.6B for $16.2B total revenue in the first half. To get that revenue, they "spent nearly $9 billion on computing capacity and infrastructure in the first half." Scaling up for the $16.8B third-quarter revenue suggests $9.3B compute spend. Meanwhile to get the $8B remaining first-half loss, they must've had $24.2B expenses, $15.2B of which are not compute, so about $7.6B per quarter. If that stays fixed, total third-quarter expenses should be about $16.9B, fairly close to revenue. I think reporting that their second quarter was profitable focused on the operating income exceeding operating expenses only.
So there are actually several senses in which Anthropic could be profitable or fail to be:
1. Are operations bringing in more money than they cost? (Supposedly already happened.)
2. Are operations bringing in enough money to fund capital expenses? (Maybe close, maybe barely so.)
3. Does investing in Anthropic yield good returns?
Note that the last point crucially depends on their stock price. If it drops a little, those "bonds that could eventually convert into Anthropic shares" start showing up on the positive side of the balance sheet instead. Insofar as the stock market is efficient, if they IPO, it will be priced such that it's no longer obvious whether it's better or worse than any other investment. But early investors and founders will make bank.