Topic: Schrödinger‘s company
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 hour ago #138,664
I cannot decide what to think about Anthropic.
They portray this image, especially on the internet when I read any posts about Anthropic that they’re going to create a "nation of geniuses in a data center" and Trump is yapping about "super intelligence."
Then I go looking for the financial data, and I’m not an expert, but I don’t find much of anything, but what I do find doesn’t feel right.
I see some people act 100% confident that Anthropic’s business model is stupid.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4956670-anthropic-is-the-riskiest-ipo-of-2026
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-revenue-growth-ipo-accaf0f1
And I see former Anthropic employees yapping about how AI could end humanity and all this news about cybersecurity and AI hacking and reverse engineering things. And apparently their growth statistics are throw the roof, on revenue… not on profit… they don’t make profit.
I can’t make up my mind here. I’m convinced either this is the dumbest thing that’s ever happened or the biggest thing that’s ever happened and I can’t decide which it is and I don’t like that. What do you think?
I think this is only going the way it’s been going because Trump is in office and he doesn’t care. But if someone actually uses a frontier AI model or even an open source model to hack something important, like a bank, or an airline, and it causes some disruption in society, I feel like the government will probably pounce on that with regulation and this whole thing could turn into something different. Or maybe not.
What do you think?
They portray this image, especially on the internet when I read any posts about Anthropic that they’re going to create a "nation of geniuses in a data center" and Trump is yapping about "super intelligence."
Then I go looking for the financial data, and I’m not an expert, but I don’t find much of anything, but what I do find doesn’t feel right.
I see some people act 100% confident that Anthropic’s business model is stupid.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4956670-anthropic-is-the-riskiest-ipo-of-2026
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-revenue-growth-ipo-accaf0f1
And I see former Anthropic employees yapping about how AI could end humanity and all this news about cybersecurity and AI hacking and reverse engineering things. And apparently their growth statistics are throw the roof, on revenue… not on profit… they don’t make profit.
I can’t make up my mind here. I’m convinced either this is the dumbest thing that’s ever happened or the biggest thing that’s ever happened and I can’t decide which it is and I don’t like that. What do you think?
I think this is only going the way it’s been going because Trump is in office and he doesn’t care. But if someone actually uses a frontier AI model or even an open source model to hack something important, like a bank, or an airline, and it causes some disruption in society, I feel like the government will probably pounce on that with regulation and this whole thing could turn into something different. Or maybe not.
What do you think?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #1,466,283
Now Anthropic says all their models are profitable. Except, I can’t really verify that by searing on the internet. Numbers are surprisingly scarce and whenever I do find numbers they always don’t mean what they sound like they mean because Anthropic does so many weird accounting tricks. Whenever I find a number that says they’re profitable, I look into it, and it turns out, they made up some weird definition of profitability and they were actually never profitable. But then when I look up their debt, I look into it, and I find sources saying the debt doesn’t matter. So it’s like, wtf is it?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,284
Then, to be fair, Anthropic looks like it makes a little more sense than OpenAI. But if you look at say, Google’s corporate structure, Google is straightforward, easy to understand. Alphabet is a company, alphabet has various brands, one of them is Google, all the software stuff everybody knows about is under the brand name Google. That’s easy to understand.Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,285
But then with OpenAI, you have a for profit company partially owned by Microsoft owned by a non-profit company that’s owned by a charity.And it’s like wtf is that?
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,287
Then Anthropic is thisAnonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,288
There's no contradiction here.
A technology can be dangerous, and businesses producing that technology can be unprofitable.
A technology can be dangerous, and businesses producing that technology can be unprofitable.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 17 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,289
Which like, is less confusing than OpenAI, but it’s still weird. They have a "long-term benefit trust" to pretend like they have some oversight, except when you take into account how these people do accounting, I’m not studied enough in law to tell you how, but I really don’t think they have any oversight.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,290
AI isn't profitable period because if it was every AI company would be doing what makes money. So what do you do when you're not making money and on the verge of collapse? That's right you get the government to bail you out yaaay! So that explains what you're seeing with AI.
> hmm if we just let hackers abuse our AI and let the AI hack other companies and governments, eventually people will get so scared the government has to step in and give us that sweet sweet government money
> but why would the government give them money
they basically want AI to be "publicly owned" aka privatize the gains and socialize the losses. The AI companies have been talking about this for a while now seriously just look it up. So the fearmongering around AI and the constant hacks are all part of the plan. Another part of the plan is putting AI in everything to make AI "too big to fail". Yes that's right they're just doing 2008 all over again. You put AI in everything so the government can't let you fail and the government steps in to own some of the company and blah blah. They'll even probably end up putting military installations around data centers as attacks on data centers ramp up.
basically it's all a scam which makes sense it's America after all
> hmm if we just let hackers abuse our AI and let the AI hack other companies and governments, eventually people will get so scared the government has to step in and give us that sweet sweet government money
> but why would the government give them money
they basically want AI to be "publicly owned" aka privatize the gains and socialize the losses. The AI companies have been talking about this for a while now seriously just look it up. So the fearmongering around AI and the constant hacks are all part of the plan. Another part of the plan is putting AI in everything to make AI "too big to fail". Yes that's right they're just doing 2008 all over again. You put AI in everything so the government can't let you fail and the government steps in to own some of the company and blah blah. They'll even probably end up putting military installations around data centers as attacks on data centers ramp up.
basically it's all a scam which makes sense it's America after all
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 43 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,291
@1,466,288 (B)
Yes, that’s true. But like, what’s about to happen when Anthropic IPOs though? Should I be conferenced about this? The entire situation seems crazy on both the technological front and the financial front.
Yes, that’s true. But like, what’s about to happen when Anthropic IPOs though? Should I be conferenced about this? The entire situation seems crazy on both the technological front and the financial front.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,292
@1,466,290 (C)
I’m just trying to wrap my head around how we legitimately created this amazing technology and how the same people that did that are doing financial stuff that makes no sense.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around how we legitimately created this amazing technology and how the same people that did that are doing financial stuff that makes no sense.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,293
One thing I’ve read online is that apparently Anthropic cited growing and organized resistance to building new data centers among the American public as a business risk, so they plan to build more data centers outside of the United States. Except 75% of the world’s processing power is in the United States now because of how far they’ve taken this thing.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,294
I’m not even saying building data centers isn’t the strategy for winning the future, I dunno. I’m just saying they went all in really really fast and really really hard without thinking twice about it.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 44 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,295
@1,466,292 (A)It's not complicated because most of the hype around AI is fabricated. Like it's a useful technology for sure but we're already reaching a point where progress is slowing down a lot. The important thing to remember is that the tech bros want to overthrow the rule of the financial elite and replace them in the power hierarchy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,297
Then on top of all of that, I don’t trust their CEO because he’s always yapping about China and how we need to win the AI race and we can’t let China win when he worked on AI at a Chinese company. Imagine if you or I worked on AI at a Chinese tech company. Don’t you feel like the NSA or something would come after us? That seems like a thing you wouldn’t do as an American citizen. Idk.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 59 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,298
@1,466,295 (C)
I guess, if we’re in for the ride I might as well get the popcorn out since there’s nothing I can do about whatever the consequences of this whole thing will be.
I guess, if we’re in for the ride I might as well get the popcorn out since there’s nothing I can do about whatever the consequences of this whole thing will be.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,299
@1,466,297 (A)
It's just more fearmongering to secure that bailout lol but if you're using AI to pick out missile targets you also don't want china to have an AI that's slightly better at that so there's a bit of truth there
It's just more fearmongering to secure that bailout lol but if you're using AI to pick out missile targets you also don't want china to have an AI that's slightly better at that so there's a bit of truth there
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,301
@1,466,298 (A)
Well you and your buddies could burn down a data center or just spread the word about what they're planning but obviously there will be a response. You don't just let people get in the way of your plans for global domination
Well you and your buddies could burn down a data center or just spread the word about what they're planning but obviously there will be a response. You don't just let people get in the way of your plans for global domination
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 13 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,302
@1,466,299 (C)
Tbh I doubt that the US and China will ever directly fight each other because of nuclear weapons. I think a proxy war is more likely, but I doubt the US would get directly involved, although the US has a longstanding policy of not saying if they would get directly involved or not. Which kinda tells you what you need to know.
Tbh I doubt that the US and China will ever directly fight each other because of nuclear weapons. I think a proxy war is more likely, but I doubt the US would get directly involved, although the US has a longstanding policy of not saying if they would get directly involved or not. Which kinda tells you what you need to know.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,303
I mean, if you had a friend, right, and somebody said they want to kill your friend, you wouldn’t say, "I can neither confirm or deny whether I will protect my friend" if the answer is yes.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,305
Or like with Ukraine for instance, unless it’s codified into law that we absolutely have to, we probably won’t directly defend another country.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 hour ago, 41 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,306
@1,466,302 (A)
It's not about actually fighting. It's just standard military practice. The other guy builds a new gun? You build a bigger one. It's part of why there's a space race for satellites right now
It's not about actually fighting. It's just standard military practice. The other guy builds a new gun? You build a bigger one. It's part of why there's a space race for satellites right now
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,307
@previous (C)
Yeah. We’re long past the point where that’s a rational decision though. The only countries that are still doing it are the US, Russia, and China. Russia because of ego issues, China because they want to overtake the US, and the US because of ego. We don’t actually need 5,000 nuclear weapons for anything. There’s no scenario where we’d ever even need 50 nuclear weapons.
Yeah. We’re long past the point where that’s a rational decision though. The only countries that are still doing it are the US, Russia, and China. Russia because of ego issues, China because they want to overtake the US, and the US because of ego. We don’t actually need 5,000 nuclear weapons for anything. There’s no scenario where we’d ever even need 50 nuclear weapons.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,308
Unless it’s something stupid like an alien invasion and their space ship is so big it’s like the size of the moon and we need 5,000 nuclear weapons to take it out, we’re past the point where advances in military technology are actually needed. We can kill people more precisely than ever before, but they’re dudes on the opposite side of the planet that likely couldn’t have actually touched us in the first instance even if they wanted to. At this point it’s more like we just do it because we do it and that’s our thing.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 54 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,309
I don’t think the government knows why we’re at war in the Middle East anymore lol.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 59 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,466,310
Tbh if we took half of our nuclear weapons tomorrow, took them apart, and used them for nuclear fuel, we’d be just as safe and be one step closer to having clean energy.