upvote
>(a) it's ability/desire to make such investments is still driven by stock-driven optimism

I don't think it has much to do with the stock price at all. Current platform oligopolists fear the rise of new platforms. They want a foot in the door for strategic reasons.

What could happen is that frontier labs like Anthropic and OpenAI never become platforms and turn out to be providers of a largely commoditised, low margin service.

In that event, current valuations are too high. But Anthropic's valuation doesn't seem extreme to me. Their $30bn annual run rate is valued at $380bn.

Given this price and Anthropic's strategic value, Google's investment seems reasonable.

reply
But OpenAI/Anthropic are not selling the compute as they're buying that from Google/Amazon/etc.

So they're selling the transformation, or the model. Or the ability to make a model. And their brand and their harness.

And it seems like the model is definitely not worth 380 billion. Models depreciate incredibly fast. There are lots of models and the other models aren't that far behind.

And it seems like the harness is not worth much as there's already open source alternatives that people claim are better.

And all these companies are paying lots of money for these AI training experts.

But I suspect that any regular Hacker News reader of 10 years dev experience could become a training expert in months if allowed to play with a load of compute and a lot of data for a bit.

Just like any of us could have become a data scientist, this stuff is not particularly hard. Random horny dudes on the internet are putting out loras and quantized models in days against the open source image models.

So what's worth 380 billion exactly? The brand?

These valuations just look really off. Not by one order of magnitude, but more like by 4 orders of magnitude. Like 380 million might be a reasonable valuation, but not billion.

What I also don't get is that it's pretty obvious to me that the Europeans should all be spinning up their own, not necessarily massive, data centers and throwing a few billion at some guys in Cambridge or Stockholm or London or Berlin to make their own AI models.

Only the French have done it.

But instead the rest seem to be trying to court Anthropic or OpenAI to build data centers. Which is just stupid politics given what's happening in the world right now.

reply
The technical task is not the business task... unless the task really is a commodity.

Coding facebook isn't rocket surgery either. Neither is Visa, Salesforce or many other tech-centric companies. Replicating their business model is.

Those are locked in by network effects. Path dependencies and suchlike can play a role. But... the upshot is that anthropic, open Ai and whatnot have the model people are using for work.

A government sponsored model isn't a bad thing to have, but I thing it's unlikely (but possible) that it will also be the product people want to use or the business that succeeds.

reply
>So what's worth 380 billion exactly? The brand?

Whatever it is that leads to a $30bn run rate, growing >200%. Right now it's having the better model and being able to show how to use it in specific verticals.

But I suspect in the long run only platforms have high margins (and they will need margins not just revenues to justify their valuation). Are they becoming platforms? Google seems to think (or fear) that they might.

reply