undefined

points

[-]

> I don't think in court a whole ban on a product for security reasons would stand.

There are lots such products, like weapons-grade radioactive material, weapons outside the toy gun range, various biological material, ...

So it seems perfectly possible to bad products for security reasons.

by altmanaltman14 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I get what you mean but you are very wrong about the stock market and how people react to export bans. Everytime US had restricted control for Nvidia chips in the news over the last few years, the stock price went down not up.

It might be a good marketing trick but it is not a good thing in the stock market given historical trends.

Your view highly screams you only have a superficial understanding of financial markets and you shouldn't extraploate that to "this is how market works because its all hype and everything is vapor"

by bonesss13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Anthropic is chasing an IPO, Nvidia is not, creating very different market reactions and incentive structures for the companies. Apples and oranges.

Anthropics reputation as a near-term world-ender boosts their IPO directly.

by dandellion7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You can't justify trillions of market cap just serving the US market, and they've just kneecapped their ability to compete anywhere else, it would be delusional to invest on something like this thinking it's going to be a free market, you'd just be indirectly funding the US government ability to use AI against others, especially if you are a non-US citizen (or a subgroup of US citizens they don't like). The near-term world-ending is just pure marketing, they haven't shown anything nearly as impressive as they've been promising, and the software they've produced so far with near infinite access to agents has been very impressively bad.

by altmanaltman13 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

No, its not apples and oranges. How/why does it boost their IPO directly? Elaborate on this please instead of stating it as an universal fact (because it isn't).

I feel you are just talking a hypothetical without having any basis. You think it'll have an impact on IPO directly and that it will be a positive one. But you have no proof or historical precidence for the same. Meanwhile we have historical proof that markets reacts negatively when a company is blocked by the government on selling their top products freely. And that is most likely going to happen here as well.

Public perception might be changed by these "ohhh its so scary guys" marketing but these don't translate to actual market perception when it comes to actual facts and numbers on the financials.