551–560 of 661 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can raise $13B at a 20x revenue valuation is not the bubble indicator you think it is. What a minute. Isn't this the very definition of a bubble?
20x earnings is not that insane for a fast growing startup. Now Tesla and Palantir at 100x earnings is insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Margins of 60%? On inference maybe but that disappears when you price in model training. This guy's analysis says they are bleeding out despite massive revenue https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/
In Jan, when deepseek launched, Dario Amodei had to disclose they spent about $10M to train the last generation of models (his arguments was deepseek was on the curve, not breaking it). They earned $250M in May based on ARR, and about $400M in july. Model training is going to be amortized over multiple years anyway. I am not privy to how much they spent, not going to comment on that. GM was public news, and hence I g…
Claude 4 launch was not even fifteen months after the launch of Claude 3 (which is discontinued). The “multiple” is 1.2 - I wouldn’t call that “multiple years”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can raise $13B at a 20x revenue valuation is not the bubble indicator you think it is. What a minute. Isn't this the very definition of a bubble?
20x earnings is not that insane for a fast growing startup. Now Tesla and Palantir at 100x earnings is insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need a 100+gigs ram and a top of the line GPU to run legacy models at home. Maybe if you push it that setup will let you handle 2 people maybe 3 people. You think anyone is going to make money on that vs $20 a month to anthropic?
Can you explain to me where Anthropic (or it's investors) expect to be making money if that's what it actually costs to run this stuff?
Not the GP (in fact I just replied to GP, disagreeing with them), but I think that economies of scale kick in when you are provisioning M GPUs for N users and both M and N are large.
When you are provisioning for N=1 (a single user), then M=1 is the minimum you need, which makes it very expensive per user. When N=5 and M is still 1, then the cost per user is roughly a fifth of the original single-user cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Margins of 60%? On inference maybe but that disappears when you price in model training. This guy's analysis says they are bleeding out despite massive revenue https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropic-is-bleeding-out/
In Jan, when deepseek launched, Dario Amodei had to disclose they spent about $10M to train the last generation of models (his arguments was deepseek was on the curve, not breaking it). They earned $250M in May based on ARR, and about $400M in july. Model training is going to be amortized over multiple years anyway. I am not privy to how much they spent, not going to comment on that. GM was public news, and hence I g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a previous generation, the enabler of all our computer tech innovation was the incredible pace of compute growth due to Moore's Law, which was also "top-down" from very well-funded companies since designing and building cutting edge chips was (and still is) very, very expensive. The hype was insane, and decisions about what chip features to build were made largely on the basis of existing vendor relationships. Tho…
The difference is once you bought one of those chips you could do your own innovation on top of it (i.e., with software) without further interference from those well-funded companies. You can't do that with GPT et al. because of the subscription model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's not pretend there aren't multitudes out there doing similar things who never get caught. SBF was just more egregious and untimely w/ his actions.
If you know of other SBFs, please name them so that we can call for their investigation and prosecution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
20x earnings is not that insane for a fast growing startup. Now Tesla and Palantir at 100x earnings is insane.
Tesla and Palantir are both propped up by the federal government, kinda poor examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think most folks think very hard about where most wealth comes from but imagine it just sort of exists in a fixed quantity or is pulled from the ground like coal or diamonds - there's a fixed amount of it, and if there are very rich people, it must be because they took the coal/diamonds away from other people who need it. This leads to catchy slogans. But it's pretty obvious wealth can be created and destroye…
> The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...] I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. Trade allows specialization which does increase wealth massively, no doubt. And because of how useful specialization is, all wealth creation involves trade somewhere. But specialization is just one component of wealth creation. It stands alongside labor, innovation, and probably others…
> I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it.
At a very foundational level, all wealth comes from trade, even when there is no currency involved.
When two parties voluntarily make a trade, each party gets more value out of the trade than they had before, so the sum total of value after the trade is, by definition alone, greater than the sum total of value before the trade.
Small example: I offer to trade you a bag of potatoes for 2 hours of your time to fix my tractor, and you accept.
This trade only happens because:
1. I value a running tractor more than I value my bag of potatoes
2. You value a bag of potatoes more than you value 2 hours of your time.
After the trade is done, I have more value (running tractor) and you have more value (a bag of potatoes), hence the total value after the trade is more than the total value before the trade.
The only thing that creates value is trade. It's the source of value.
HN in 2046 > Headline: OpenAI raises 400 Trillion, proclaims dominion over the delta quadrant > Top comment: This just proves that it's a bubble. No AI company has been profitable, we're in the era of diminishing returns. I don't know one real use case for AI It's hilarious how routinely bearish this site is about AI. I guess it makes sense given how much AI devalues siloed tech expertise.
comment history appears to be an AI shill account.