> Remember when everyone died during COVID?
yes
> And when we finally ended racism during DEI?
I fucking hate geohot, I can't believe you monsters are into this shit
The Doom Justifies the Valuation
131–140 of 161 posts
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
What else is there? The product as delivered today doesn't come anywhere near a justification for these valuations. All of it is built on an expectation of future capabilities, and that's where the Dario-penned doom papers come in.
You cold also drive valuations like Musk does. Hype up the *positives*. Even here on HN, Tesla fans try to justify the market cap by pointing at Optimus, even though nobody can buy it and there's already competition for it which you can buy.
The positives aren’t there though, beyond what people are already using it for (pair programming aid, fancy auto complete, refactoring tool). Hence the article’s thesis: the doom justifies the valuation.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
people at Anthropic (and OpenAI, for that matter!) really, genuinely do believe The same could have been said (and has been said) about other tech company employees for all sorts of other reasons in alignment with those companies' goals. Don't you remember how much people used to laugh at Tesla employees for worshipping Elon Musk as some kind of god of engineering and entrepreneurial genius? Or Apple employees in the…
Sure; they might be caught in their own hype cycle. I am pointing out that the repeated claims in this thread (and by Geohot, ironically enough) that they are NFT crypto bros running a scam is incorrect.
Doesn’t have to be a naked scam though. Dario could be caught in the dictator’s dilemma: he was a believer at first but now he’s on the tiger’s back so he dare not get off.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#134I was hoping for more analysis here :\
like from a technical standpoint, why is the doom and gloom incorrect? I've heard some really interesting arguments for that, and non of them are here.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Because it makes their technology seem more important and powerful? Do you usually believe 100% what a company says about itself? > Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits Who cares about profits? None of these companies make money like a business currently. It's all speculative valuation and influenced by the same hy…
When people discuss the negative effects of climate change, do you think that boosts fossil fuel company valuations by making their products seem more important and powerful?
Fossil fuel companies do everything in their power to stop that discussion.
However, arms manufacturers are doing everything in their power to make you feel unsafe and weak and scared. That way, you are more likely to buy a gun.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#136I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.
A common line of logic would be that a company would never put a dangerous sticker on their product unless they absolutely have to by regulation. So if they do it, it absolutely means they see a benefit of doing it.
Also why do you think the Mythos thing is bad for profits? Anthropic hyped the model up too hard and didn't even have the compute to serve it properly to all users.
The export control issue has not affected Anthropic's revenue and only made its top of the line products seem far more impressive than they actually are. People don't think Nvidia is a bad company if the government puts export controls on their products.
For Anthropic, valuation and public perception is 100x more important before the IPO than revenue or profitablity.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#137> Remember when everyone died during COVID? yes > And when we finally ended racism during DEI? I fucking hate geohot, I can't believe you monsters are into this shit
I just want to say, as someone who lost literally every single grandparent I had to covid... this dude can go fuck himself.
Like - right up his own asshole.
---
I understand this comment is inappropriate. I think the comment in the article is WAY more fucking out of line than this.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#138I stopped taking this guy seriously after he proposed "just" digging canals to bring desalinated ocean water into the U.S. desert.
Even in this article, he claims COVID wasn’t a big deal because, essentially, only a million people died in the US instead of everyone. No one ever claimed 100% mortality.
> Remember when everyone died during COVID?
Most people realize this is hyperbolic rhetorical. Taken in context (instead of nitpicking a minor "detail") he's calling attention to the fact some people think that AI will affect EVERYONE negatively.
This article was not about Covid, which means his sarcastic question serves a purpose to illuminate the issue with judgment on the rise of AI, not argue that "only a million people died" as you claim.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#139Yea, the "doom trolling" seems to be starting to reach its limit. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/opinion/ai-dangerous-open...
Can you share a non-paywalled version? Wayback machine doesn't seem to have this.
Re: The Doom Justifies the Valuation
#140I have never understood this line of thinking. Why would a company warn that their technology is dangerous if it wasn't? Looking at the ongoing Mythos export control issue, it's obviously not good for profits. If you assume AGI is possible, you must agree that it would be at the very least profoundly destabilizing. The companies are built around this assumption.
When the U.S. first legalized pharmaceutical ads on TV, one of the requirements was that the drug companies had to disclose side effects during the ads. The companies chafed at that, thinking it would make the drugs less appealing, and only included the bare minimum the rules required them to. But their own data eventually showed that consumers actually responded positively to hearing the side effects. They found that people think if a drug is powerful, it must also have strong side effects. So instead of just scaring them, it reassured them the product was good. After learning that, the drug makers started including more side effects in the ads than they were required to.