Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic raises $13B Series F

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 661 posts

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#581

Post by Printerisreal »

arcticbull wrote: post #295
wagwang wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money banks create is determined by the appetite for credit which is determined by the interest rate. The fed has not been actively destroying money, they are at most slowing the rate of the increase of money.

They influence creation of money by adjusting the short-term interest rate which influences the demand for borrowing at commercial and retail banks. It's not that direct or straight-forward though, because they only have control over the short end of the yield curve not the long end. The long end of the yield curve has interest rates defined mostly by inflation expectations. If they dropped rates to 0% overnight it p…

they lie about real inflation, everywhere

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#584

Post by oblio »

simianwords wrote: post #568
oblio wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm predicting that: 1. opportunity costs are a thing. 2. if you add Uber's financial numbers since creation, the crazy amount of VC that was invested Uber would have provided better returns by investing it in the S&P 500. 3. Uber will settle in as a boring, profitable company that's going to be a side note in both the history of tech and also of transportation and will primarily be remembered for eroding worker…

I don't get your point. You would have still made more money investing in Uber than in S&P.

No, you wouldn't have, unless you were one of handful VCs or Uber execs (ok, and a bunch of pre-IPO Uber employees).

Uber IPO May 2019: market cap $82bn. Uber now: $193bn. 2.35x multiplier.

S&P 500 May 2019: $2750. S&P 500 now: $6460. 2.35x multiplier.

So the much, much riskier Uber investment has barely matched a passive S&P 500 investment over the same time frame. And the business itself has lost money, more money was put into it than has been gotten back so far.

I'm not even sure why I'm in this conversation as it seems ideological. I bring up facts and you bring up... vibes?

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#585

Post by conartist6 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #309
llamasushi wrote: post #22

The compute moat is getting absolutely insane. We're basically at the point where you need a small country's GDP just to stay in the game for one more generation of models. What gets me is that this isn't even a software moat anymore - it's literally just whoever can get their hands on enough GPUs and power infrastructure. TSMC and the power companies are the real kingmakers here. You can have all the talent in the w…

The whole LLM era is horrible. All the innovation is coming "top-down" from very well funded companies - many of them tech incumbents, so you know the monetization is going to be awful. Since the models are expensive to run it's all subscription priced and has to run in the cloud where the user has no control. The hype is insane, and so usage is being pushed by C-suite folks who have no idea whether it's actually ben…

Come to the counterrevolution; we have cookies : )

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#586

Post by simianwords »

oblio wrote: post #584
simianwords wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your point. You would have still made more money investing in Uber than in S&P.

No, you wouldn't have, unless you were one of handful VCs or Uber execs (ok, and a bunch of pre-IPO Uber employees). Uber IPO May 2019: market cap $82bn. Uber now: $193bn. 2.35x multiplier. S&P 500 May 2019: $2750. S&P 500 now: $6460. 2.35x multiplier. So the much, much riskier Uber investment has barely matched a passive S&P 500 investment over the same time frame. And the business itself has lost money, more money…

Let me get this straight.

I was replying to this: "So far Lyft seems to be doing okay, which proves the business plan doesn't really work." when I said Uber is profitable

Your retort to that was S&P grew more than Uber, which is a nonsensical argument. Our standard for what is a good business is if it grows faster than S&P after going public?

Edit: I dug up some research related to this, most companies do worse than S&P after becoming public. What's your point then?

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#587

Post by elbear »

lelanthran wrote: post #559
ChadNauseam wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> > 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. 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, great…

There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. They see commerce as a zero-sum game.

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#588

Post by simgt »

ryukoposting wrote: post #231
bradley13 wrote: post #201

Throwing money and compute at AI strikes me as a very short-term solution. In the end, the human brain does not run off a nuclear power plant, not even when we are learning. I expect the next breakthroughs to be all about efficiency. Granted, that could be tomorrow, or in 5 years, and the AI companies have to stay all at in the meantime.

This is roughly where I am on the matter. If the energy costs stay massive, your investment in AI is really just a bet that energy production will get cheaper. If the energy costs fall, so does the moat that keeps valuations like this one afloat. If there's a step-function breakthrough in efficiency, it's far more likely to be on the model side than on the semiconductor side. Even then, investing in the model compani…

Yeah. Electricity production that we also need for electrifying all of our transports and industry because of climate change. Good luck getting that cheaper.

That said innovation on the model side is more likely to come from a 10B-funded startup that still has some money to spare on the brightest researchers on top of giving them all the data and compute they want to play with.

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#589

Post by euLh7SM5HDFY »

baalimago wrote: post #25

Prediction: this is the final big "hufff" before the bubble bursts.

Bubble will only burst when market runs out of money or new model releases provide little to none improvements. Or someone actually creates a real AGI. No matter how low that chance is, the FOMO among investors must be crazy.

Re: Anthropic raises $13B Series F

#590

Post by acdha »

HotHotLava wrote: post #478
acdha wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take cloud for example - where did the innovation come from? It was from the top. Definitely not. That came years later but in the late 2000s to mid-2010s it was often engineers pushing for cloud services over the executives’ preferred in-house services because it turned a bunch of helpdesk tickets and weeks to months of delays into an AWS API call. Pretty soon CTOs were backing it because those teams shipped faste…

I'm pretty sure OP wasn't talking about the management hierarchy, but "from the top" in the sense that it was big established companies inventing the cloud and innovating and pushing in the space, not small startups.

That could be, I was definitely thinking of management hierarchy since that difference has been so striking with AI.

A lot of my awareness started in the academic HPC world which was a bit ahead in needing high capacity of generic resources but it felt like this came from the edges rather than the major IT giants. Companies like IBM, Microsoft, or HP weren’t doing it, and some companies like Oracle or Cisco appeared to thought that infrastructure complexity was part of their lock on enterprise IT departments since places with complex hand run books weren’t quick to switch vendors.

Amazon at the time wasn’t seen as a big tech company - they were where you bought CDs – and companies like Joyent or Rackspace had a lot of mindshare as well before AWS started offering virtual compute in 2006. One big factor in all of this was that x86 virtualization wasn’t cheap until the mid-to-late 2000s so a lot of people weren’t willing to pay high virtualization costs, but without that you’re talking services like Bingodisk or S3 rather than companies migrating compute loads.

Post reply on HN