upvote

points

by epistasis18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby anonymous90821318 hours ago|
next
[-]
There has not been a company that has overpromised and underdelivered as strongly as Anthropic in the history of humanity. They literally talk about their chatbots being conscious, model welfare, blah blah blah. Whether or not they believe their marketing is one thing, but it is nonetheless a fact that they market themselves as having created life.
reply
upvoteby epistasis13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
OK, let's say that they actually are marketing themselves as having "Created life" (which is not anything that I have seen anywhere).

How does that "life creation" promise affect anything with the topic of the post, which is the financial valuation of the company?

Does that increase the financial valuation of the company? Expose risks in the S-1 that they haven't properly accounted for?

I don't read many Anthropic blog posts, but usually it's about a model release, interpretability research, or similar, and I haven't seen any of this marketing that you have. That said, they did somehow spend $2B on sales in the last quarter, almost 10x what it was in the prior quarter, and I don't get exposed to advertising anywhere; is this something that's getting played on TV? Billboards? Somewhere else?

reply
upvoteby anonymous90821313 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> affect anything with the topic of the post

The topic of this subthread, which you replied to, was about the sheer absurdity of this statement: "This is in fact very similar to one of Anthropic's guiding principles: underpromise and overdeliver."

That's it. Whatever you're going on about with financial valuations and S-1 risk is completely irrelevant to what you were replying to, because I was not making any kind of claim about those.

reply
upvoteby epistasis13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's a subthread where commentary about the IPO was assumed to be a joke.

I'm really baffled that you think that Anthropic has been promising the creation of life! Even if it's not meant to have anything to do with this subthread or post.

reply
upvoteby guitarlimeo12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> It's a subthread where commentary about the IPO was assumed to be a joke.

No it isn't, it's just about the absurdity of that statement vs. their usual marketing bullshit and what they actually deliver.

reply
upvoteby 13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby guitarlimeo17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is exactly what I meant. Weird that you're being downvoted.
reply
upvoteby robwwilliams18 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think the joke is that E. Holmes probably used variants of this cliche.
reply
upvoteby willy_k18 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
“Beleive” in the sense that Tom Cruise believes in the cosmic DC8?

Anthropic [employees] huffing their own koolaid fumes aside, it’s extremely difficult to believe the claims that these mega valuations are substantiated on (*one* company somehow assuming a meaningful fraction of global research and production)

reply
upvoteby epistasis17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Look there's largely diversified customer base paying them at rates snd growth that justify the valuations.

Unless "cosmic DC8" (whatever that is) has S1 with data thus string, what possible comparison could there be?

These financials are very very strong. They alleviated many doubts I had about Anthropic's viability (namely I wasn't sure training+experiments could fit in the compute budget and keep them profitable).

We have the numbers right here. Comparisons to Scientology and Elizabeth Holmes are more similar to Scientology than what we see in the S1.

reply
upvoteby 1ejeje17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No it’s not - both the customers of hyperscalers and frontier labs are highly concentrated.
reply
upvoteby epistasis16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Their distribution channels are concentrated, at 47% of revenue going through AWS or GCP.

But the top two customers are 12%, which is less customer concentration than I would have expected

reply