Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast • Hacker News Board

Re: Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast

#71

Post by cadamsdotcom » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #69

cadamsdotcom wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument may be wrong, but I myself am just fine, thank you.

I don't know about that. There's something not quite right going on with you. The deliberate misunderstanding, the faux outrage..just fine, I doubt it.

Point taken & let's get back on track.

I agree it's incomplete what I wrote; you were right to call it out.

When you as an individual are getting tens of thousands of dollars of value from a $100 item and someone says there's a slightly-worse version for $1 but can't tell you if you'll find it slightly worse or noticeably worse.. you have to stop what you're doing to evaluate them, pay switching costs etc etc. so the cost difference is less than $99 and might actually be negative, and the difference in margin after paying switching costs is negligible.

So your rational response is to investigate to lower the stakes - but even performing the investigation eats into the time you're spending getting your tens of thousands of dollars of value.

Re: Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast

#72

Post by Incipient » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 3:54 AM UTC

_kulang wrote: post #35

jrflo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're primarily writing code yourself or meticulously reviewing the output from agents, then you're right. However, if you tried to have any of those models one-shot an app or do some highly agentic work, they would certainly fail. That's the future people are looking towards with these valuations: when its no longer economical for humans to write or even understand code, just let the models drive because they ar…

Claude is certainly able to make a superhuman mess. All of its efficacy still hinges upon good architecture and programming principles, which do not seem to be instilled in the model by anything other than luck

Two things I've figured out with pretty good certainty 1) on an existing codebase/hand written, even fable absolutely will "make a mess" if you do large changes at once, or don't check the output.

2) with detailed, WELL NUMBERED (Claude is remarkably good at following number references), multi-level design and build documentation Claude absolutely CAN produce moderately complex applications (crud with some lightly branching business workflows).

The corollary to (2) however is can you actually get that working code to be production grade, AND maintain it? that far I haven't got yet.

Re: Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast

#73

Post by jjav » Tue, Aug 18, 2026, 4:33 AM UTC

jrflo wrote: post #18

zackify wrote: post #2

The world doesn't make sense to me. I use 5.6 Luna. Deepseek v4 flash 0731. And kimi k3. Don't even need claude anymore at their insane prices for anything I do.

If you're primarily writing code yourself or meticulously reviewing the output from agents, then you're right. However, if you tried to have any of those models one-shot an app or do some highly agentic work, they would certainly fail. That's the future people are looking towards with these valuations: when its no longer economical for humans to write or even understand code, just let the models drive because they ar…

> you tried to have any of those models one-shot an app

If you try the same with the highest cost models, it all ends in tears anyway.

A completely new app may seem to work ok but as soon as you're doing ongoing development, it needs to be broken down into smaller pieces of work. We're seeing this a lot at work, some people hope to skip the careful planning and review by using the top models, and it just leads to huge bills and a lot of rewriting.

Re: Anthropic IPO valuation hinges on $190-200B 2028 revenue forecast

#74

Post by _kulang » Wed, Aug 19, 2026, 1:02 AM UTC

Incipient wrote: post #72

_kulang wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude is certainly able to make a superhuman mess. All of its efficacy still hinges upon good architecture and programming principles, which do not seem to be instilled in the model by anything other than luck

Two things I've figured out with pretty good certainty 1) on an existing codebase/hand written, even fable absolutely will "make a mess" if you do large changes at once, or don't check the output. 2) with detailed, WELL NUMBERED (Claude is remarkably good at following number references), multi-level design and build documentation Claude absolutely CAN produce moderately complex applications (crud with some lightly br…

I have quite a bit of success with Claude on Jira tickets as long as the tasks are scoped well. Put effort into the ticket, and fire Claude at the ticket with MCP. I essentially review the PR.

But this is only possible because I have created a completely new python development workflow with fixed formatting, style, and unification of tooling around uv. We’ve also split our projects into smaller repos, some which function as libraries and some which are applications depending on those libraries.

I think the key to success here is to limit what context is required to do development. I’d say it’s slightly more on the extreme side of “modular” than a codebase I would write otherwise