Topic: I DO THIS IPO FOR THE HONOR OF ANTHROPIC!
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 hour ago #138,606
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 8 seconds later[^] [v] #1,465,666
Wait until you see the graph that isn’t projected.https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-revenue-growth-ipo-accaf0f1
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 6 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,669
@previous (A)
> Wait until you see the graph that isn’t projected.
>
> https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-revenue-growth-ipo-accaf0f1
But needs $750 billion in coming years for more compute capacity.
> Wait until you see the graph that isn’t projected.
>
> https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-revenue-growth-ipo-accaf0f1
But needs $750 billion in coming years for more compute capacity.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 31 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,670
In all fairness, the $80 billion in losses actually doesn’t matter because those losses grow as the company grows so you shouldn’t actually be concerned about that in particular.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 59 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,672
@1,465,669 (B)
Yeah, it’s fine. It’s billionaire math. They win no matter what. Worse case scenario their CEO is a billionaire and we deal with whatever tf comes out of this IPO. Whether that’s massive job loss because it’s successful or a financial crisis because it’s not. Either way he’s getting paid.
Yeah, it’s fine. It’s billionaire math. They win no matter what. Worse case scenario their CEO is a billionaire and we deal with whatever tf comes out of this IPO. Whether that’s massive job loss because it’s successful or a financial crisis because it’s not. Either way he’s getting paid.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 57 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,673
But seriously though, the graph I posted isn’t the graph in the article, if anybody has a WSJ subscription, scroll down to that graph.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 11 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,674
@1,465,670 (A)
> In all fairness, the $80 billion in losses actually doesn’t matter because those losses grow as the company grows so you shouldn’t actually be concerned about that in particular.
When I criticized the dot coms and crypto, those pretending to be in the know are obvious because they always say “you just don’t get it.” But their smugness never includes an explanation.
> In all fairness, the $80 billion in losses actually doesn’t matter because those losses grow as the company grows so you shouldn’t actually be concerned about that in particular.
When I criticized the dot coms and crypto, those pretending to be in the know are obvious because they always say “you just don’t get it.” But their smugness never includes an explanation.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 49 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,675
I don’t want to try and screenshot it, because I’ve seen people mess up screenshots before and accidentally leak some info they didn’t intend to, so I’m just not going to bother with that.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 41 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,676
@1,465,674 (B)
Yeah, I think this is going to be a disaster either way, I’m just tempering my expectations because the rich always get richer.
Yeah, I think this is going to be a disaster either way, I’m just tempering my expectations because the rich always get richer.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 5 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,677
The fun part is this whole thing is going to happen two times in a row.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 10 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,678
This is the graph that isn’t projectedAnonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 1 hour ago, 52 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,680
It’s like, bad, except if you think you can ignore the "change in fair value of convertible notes and other instruments" …then they’re still not profitable.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,681
I hope it succeeds. If it doesn’t then there’s a bad week for stocks and so much hype behind a single company you’ll see the usual “is the bust here?” article by last week’s boosters.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,682
Their revenue growth is insane, it’s just it appears that it doesn’t seem to be getting more profitable the more their revenue grows. They seem to think they can make it work… it’s not very transparent, I don’t know. If it works, I’m not going to be shocked, because this is billionaire math we’re talking about, and the rich always find a way to get richer, but this is… what it is.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,683
@1,465,681 (B)
Tbh I don’t hope anything happens, I just feel like this stuff is getting out of hand and there should be some regulation. Whether they fail or succeed, it will cause problems.
Tbh I don’t hope anything happens, I just feel like this stuff is getting out of hand and there should be some regulation. Whether they fail or succeed, it will cause problems.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,684
What I think will happen (not what I want to happen) is I think when they IPO, the stock is going to do what SpaceX did. At first it will go up, because it sorta has to. The insiders can’t sell for a certain period so when it goes public, more people can buy it, so if more people can buy it, that can’t make it go down. It’s going to go up, but that also doesn’t mean it will be a good investment.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,685
Some people will time it correctly, most probably won’t. By the time there are articles hyping it up saying it made however many new millionaires it will already be too late.
Anonymous B replied with this 38 minutes ago, 28 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,686
@1,465,683 (A)
> Tbh I don’t hope anything happens, I just feel like this stuff is getting out of hand and there should be some regulation. Whether they fail or succeed, it will cause problems.
Singular megacompanies shouldn’t be able to make or break exchanges. Not that politicians or regulators care. They seem to forget they work for the public, and not to perpetuate their own sinecures, pocketbooks, and prestige.
> Tbh I don’t hope anything happens, I just feel like this stuff is getting out of hand and there should be some regulation. Whether they fail or succeed, it will cause problems.
Singular megacompanies shouldn’t be able to make or break exchanges. Not that politicians or regulators care. They seem to forget they work for the public, and not to perpetuate their own sinecures, pocketbooks, and prestige.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 23 minutes ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,688
@previous (B)
It’s literally a company that only has a few thousand employees that could be valued at trillions of dollars. The old tech companies at least employed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. It just feels dystopian. I’d like to believe in the hype and think that this could be good somehow, but I just don’t see how this is going to lead to anything good.
It’s literally a company that only has a few thousand employees that could be valued at trillions of dollars. The old tech companies at least employed tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. It just feels dystopian. I’d like to believe in the hype and think that this could be good somehow, but I just don’t see how this is going to lead to anything good.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 22 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,689
It seems like they want to create a new system where at the top there are just some rich people who do bullshit all day, nothing productive, but they own the AI so they profit, meanwhile underneath there are a bunch of people with no purpose who can’t compete at anything and if they try the wealthy will instantly copy it and mass produce it. I feel like that’s what they want and what they’re working towards, but that’s a society that can’t exist for long because it doesn’t work.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 19 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,691
And that’s without mentioning the amount of power and control this technology will give the government. It can’t coexist with democracy.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 16 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,693
Imagine the government knows everywhere you’ve ever been, everything you’ve ever done, everything you’ve ever said, every file on your computer, and can’t act on that for every single person individually in real time. You can’t have freedom of speech in that world.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 6 minutes ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,465,694
Before he founded anthropic Dario Amodei’s neuroscience research was on modeling the collective behavior of neurons to predict what they will do ahead of time. I get it probably wasn’t his intention originally, but there’s something profoundly creepy about the idea of wanting to model brains to predict what they do before they do it and then trying to have this huge society altering project in the form of a company to try and reinvent work and partner with the government and the military. There’s something there that’s not quite right.