I'm a normal person with a beating heart and conscience, so I don't give a damn about how much shareholder value someone has ever created, and I never will.
So you are not planning to ever retire? You never buy anything? You dont have a job?
Unless you are a subsistence farmer, everything you have in your life is thanks to the economy and "shareholder value".
Its strange to me how many people will say stuff like "who cares about the economy, I care about people" when the economy is the thing that ensures people have food and shelter and dont starve.
>> everything you have in your life is thanks to the economy and "shareholder value".
No it's not, shareholder value as understood as owning a piece of a publicly traded company doesn't produce anything on its own and it's definitely independent of the economy of a society. Could even be argued that the wealth stuck in the shareholder value is reducing the investments that could be being made in the interest of the rest of the economy.
I can easily make something and sell it to you without creating shareholder value.
Huh? Who's talking about that? OP argued that everything we have is because of shareholder value. That is false.
No one is talking about anything being easy or redefining a market (which, since you bring it up, has been done infinite times by private and state funded companies as well)
It's just that "Jensen has created more shareholder value than nearly any human on earth", to many people, sounds a bit like "McDonalds has created more calories than nearly every company on earth". Sure, you need calories to survive, but that's not exactly the issue people are having here.
literally what is the upside? They're supposedly worth as much as meta despite having nowhere near the customer base or years of work? How much more valuation do they have to trick people into giving them before investors get a return?
Anthropic hit 9 billion ARR in Dec 2025 and 80 billion in Oct 2026.
Meta hit 9 billion in 2014 and 80 billion in 2020. It is now at 250 billion.
At this growth rate Anthropic will be bigger than Meta already next year.
Caveats: It's hard to believe that this growth rate would continue. And Meta's numbers above are trailing 12 months, while Anthropic's are annualized run rate.
> Anthropic hit 9 billion ARR in Dec 2025 and 80 billion in Oct 2026
This is a bit misleading and based on projections of prior reported months. Growth has already slowed, Q3 in dollars was less than Q2. The timing aligns largely with the growth (since mid-summer) of open weight models.
Since they actually have paying customers, it's a completely different sort of thing than for Meta. The question is instead whether they can keep at the frontier, whether the compute they've signed up for is good enough, etc.
I think this is down to how investors think about how to value a piece of a company. I think about it almost the same way as I think about sports gambling.
There's a value proposition in which direction the stock is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there. It only makes sense to be invested in a stock if you think it's going to be worth more later than it is now and the amount of time your money is tied up in this stock is commensurate with the profit you may get as a result.
Investors work on limited information about companies, and having a track record can influence a buying decision one way or another. It may matter to some investors and not to others. For many, it's weighed against the price of the stock. Would you bet $100 on a company with a short track record? What about $10,000, $100,000, or more? Generally there's a point where people drop out of buying more of a stock and say that they can't justify the risk given the information they have. That's the expected value that Anthropic will receive from that investor.
Anthropic needs to worry about what that number is for a huge amount of individual investors and how to maximize the amount of money put into the cost of their stocks, and there's very little chance that they can attract the biggest pool of investor money without some of those people considering their longevity vs a more established company like Meta. It may not matter to all investors, but the fact that it will matter to some makes it a factor in the total valuation.
Possibly speaks to its moat being weak, if a dedicated team from scratch can duplicate their efforts and get to where they are today in 2 years (but not where they will be).
Because building a stable revenue base takes time. We've had many flash-in-a-pan type product but things which still make money 10 years later are rare.
"I don't pay to get rid of ads, so I get bottom-of-the-barrel scam products hoisted at me. This is AI's fault, somehow, and not how the web has worked since nearly its inception."
My first online scam attempt came via uucp. I think it has always been this bad. There have been waves of effectiveness in combatting it.
A comparatively few bad actors can have a disproportionate impact on the lives of many people. Prior to the internet we had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_von_Braunhut, although that probably pales in comparison to Richard DeVos.
My first was Green Card Lawyers (edit: technically just spam, not a scam). The scale and sophistication of scams today is orders of magnitude higher than it was in the 90s.
I am from New Zealand, the marketing for stupid Sea Monkey kind of scams were quite visible growing up.
They were all overflow from targeting an American audience. There was no way for a kid in NZ to actually get money to them to be scammed.
In that way it's similar to a lot of the AI scams now, not actually a risk for most people, just poluting the space in which they exist,
Paying to get rid of ads on Youtube (which keeps getting more expensive) doesn't negate that they're almost entirely scams now. He's commenting on what he's seeing. AI has supercharged scams and you know that.
Yeah a lot of people bought into the idea of CUDA being a moat but we’re well past the point where it’s pretty trivial to jump to another equivalent stack on the software side.
Those are the two main interfaces: the inference hardware and the endpoints. Endpoints are pretty much standardized to the point that you can switch them out in seconds. CUDA still has an edge but every release like this chips away at that. Even so, TPUs are unobtanium so while I appreciate Google's effort here I also recognize that it is not something that will be useful to me.
In that sense AMD is still better positioned to give NVidia a run for their money but given the family connection and AMD's underdog status I am not very hopeful that we'll see meaningful competition in inference hardware any time soon.
NVidia is a much harder nut to crack than OpenAI or Anthropic. They are easily a decade ahead of viable competition. Check out the GB300 if you don't believe that.
While I have the same sentiment, I am also curious why a competitor can't accelerate their developments with AI. In the end, hardware development is to a large extent also software development. Is it the patents that NVIDIA has that are preventing this? Or maybe some trade secrets? AFAIK the NVIDIA hardware is manufactured entirely by TSMC.
Google does provide TPUs to big players like Anthropic and other large enterprise customers for on prem deploymens. That's their target just like those the GB300 is aimed at.
Even if it's allegedly possible, the devil has always been in the details. It always sucks to find out that there's some quirk of your model architecture that breaks an implicit assumption that underpins the export process.
reply