I think the argument is that the valuation is so high because the enormous growth IS priced in, but still being far from guaranteed. Meaning there's only downside: if the enormous growth is realized it would be a wash for your investment since it is already priced in, and in the plausible scenario it fails spectacularly or only grows moderately your investment will lose a lot of value.
It's an IPO, nothing is "priced in" until is actually being transacted in the secondary market
There's a good reason IPOs are shown to underperform the market
Yes, lots of downsides on this one, but people see it as a call option on a future where AI replaces all jobs, what would you pay for that? A rational response from someone that accepts the premise of the question is likely "anything"
> It's an IPO, nothing is "priced in" until is actually being transacted in the secondary market
Well, priced into the IPO price by Antrophic. It was you who said it would be priced into the IPO at launch, I just used the same terminology you did: "There's not going to be an IPO at a price where everyone agree that it'll see a 30% growth over 30 years. Obviously that'd be priced in."
If you don't think one should assume the market's expectations of future results are accurately priced into the IPO price, it's an argument in favour of the comment you tried to argue against, not contrary to it.
> Yes, lots of downsides on this one, but people see it as a call option on a future where AI replaces all jobs, what would you pay for that? A rational response from someone that accepts the premise of the question is likely "anything"
Even if you buy that premise, there are more premises needed. First (1) AI replaces all jobs, then (2) private AI models will be able to convert it into profit without being contested by open models, razor thin margins due to competition, regulation/nationalisation, or general societal upheaval, finally (3) Antrophic specifically will "win the race" and capture the lion's share of that market.
That being said, I would not bet any money on the stock losing value in any reasonable time frame either. It's enough to take a quick look at Tesla to see that fundamentals or actual results does not necessarily matter for a hyped sci-fi stock, even in the long term.
If that's what you think "priced in" means, I've a brand new company with a 1 trillion $ valuation priced in, would you like to buy some shares from me?
> It was you who said it would be priced into the IPO at launch
I actually said in my initial comment that the "priced in" argument is not even worth invoking, but here we are.
> If you don't think one should assume the market's expectations of future results are accurately priced into the IPO price, it's an argument in favour of the comment you tried to argue against, not contrary to it.
The comment I answered to initially said "Unless you have special insight, you should assume all stocks are equally good buys.", written by someone else. To which I replied "I smell your efficient market hypothesis argument, before you even begin just keep in mind that does not apply here, it's an IPO, the price is not set by the secondary market"
> (2) private AI models will be able to convert it into profit without being contested from open models, razor thin margins due to competition, regulation/nationalisation, or general societal upheaval, finally (3) Antrophic specifically will "win the race" and capture the lion's share of that market.
Sorry, I confused you with the user thomasahle that I initially responded to, which explains the confusion here. I don't think we disagree with each other.
It is my belief that while humans exist, there will be markets, one way or another. There will always be exchanges of value between people. There will always be people at different levels, and a form o currency to qualify for the higher levels. Even in communist societies this was true
So, a future where there is no market can only be a future where humans are extinct, in my opinion (some form of communism won't work)
If someone believes markets will still exist (one form or another) and there will still be exchanges of value between people, even in the most maximalist AI future - then I think it becomes rational for said person to seriously consider buying AI labs, even at stupid valuations
Admittedly I've formulated my previous comment wrong, I should've written "a future where AI has the potential to fulfill all jobs known today", instead of "a future where AI replaces all jobs"
As mentioned in other comments, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything, I'm here just to argue different points and positions
Production of surplus value is what generally qualifies as a "job" — I certainly agree there is potential for tools to replace/augment any job we think of, but we'll simultaneously continue inventing new jobs.
Just like economies are mostly a service-industry today, a concept that barely made any sense 100 years ago.
Still, buying tooling companies' shares makes sense when that company has something which is hard for anyone else to replicate: but we are seeing that it really is not with a number of proprietary and open weights competitors who generally go head-to-head with minor differences in capability.
This only to say that believing valuations are unreasonable does not mean you can't even be an "AI maximallist" — but markets do not work in a simple cost/value-provided equation for a long time now.
According to Scott Aaronsson, OpenAI set their agents on 8000 different problems, and got 372 final proofs. Even spending twice the original effort on simplifying and reworking those proofs so that they do not "feel like something written by someone who’s on psychedelics" would only increase the compute by less than 10% (assuming all the agents had a similar token budget).
The fact that they did not do so can only mean that either (1) their agents currently lack the capability to do it, or (2) OpenAI are completely indifferent and do not care in the slightest if the proofs are understood or not.
> The fact that they did not do so can only mean that either (1) their agents currently lack the capability to do it, or (2) OpenAI are completely indifferent and do not care in the slightest if the proofs are understood or not.
Come now, this is kind of unreasonable. When you're working on a new technology, you first get the ugly, inconvenient-to-use prototypes functioning with the core new thing you need; then you work on packaging it up into a format useable in production. I'm sure the very first digital camera sensors weren't very useful for photographers either; but it isn't really even possible to build the rest of the technology required to turn raw output of a digital sensor into something a professional photographer can use until you have the raw output itself.
The research is still on going on the raw output; getting things to the next stage, where the results are widely useable by professional mathematicians (and then on to engineers and scientists to whom the results would be practically useful), is a whole new research area.
Seems like you are just subscribing to the first option I gave, "their agents currently lack the capability to do it", but saying you think they will be more capable in the future if they can move away from the inconvenient-to-use prototypes after more research. Thinking it might be possible in the future is not in disagreement with anything I said, so I am not sure what you thought was unreasonable about my description.
Imagine someone looking at digital camera researchers showcasing a ground-breaking new sensor, and reacting by saying "Well obviously they're completely indifferent and do not care in the slightest if their work is used by real photographers or not."
Like, "Orr... maybe they care a lot, but haven't gotten to that part yet?"
You are conflating the two options with each other (lack of capability vs indifference). One of them is true, not necessarily both ("or", not "and"). I did not claim a lack of capability was the same as indifference.
They claim each result used three hours of compute on average. Even spending significantly more on simplifying and reworking would delay the release with a single day at most. If avoiding such a minor delay took precedence over (2), I think "indifference" is the correct term. It has also been a while since the release now, so there is ample opportunity to post follow ups if time pressure was the only concern.
Why do that when they can spend more hours extending QRH to a proof of the full Riemann Hypothesis? The opportunity cost of digging up small potatoes is the whole enchilada.
The main bitterness is pretty clearly directed at Google's handling of internal sexism and sexual misconduct, culminating at what seems to be pretty direct (but underhanded) retaliation at the organizers of the walkout during a time when they gathered sustained internal and external publicity, leading to her immediate departure. Are you claiming the real spark of that conflict was her "being bitter at the people around her due to being unable to maintain relevancy" and not any real convictions she held regarding the known misconduct at the company? Seems like a dubious accusation to me in that case.
> If anyone feels negative, I recommend seeing a psychologist. There is no reason for anyone not to feel exceptionally optimistic about the future these days!
"European heatwave is worst ever and impossible without climate crisis" [0]
"Nearly a quarter of the world’s nations are going through democratic backsliding, or autocratization, in 2025, and six out of the ten new autocratizing countries identified in the 2026 Democracy Report are in Europe and North America. Among them are large and influential countries like Italy, the United Kingdom, and the USA, according to the report authored by a team led by Professor Staffan I Lindberg at the V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg. The U.S. democracy is currently in a much faster deterioration process than any other democracy in modern times." [1]
"Based on current trends, progress against extreme poverty will come to a halt. As we’ll see, the number of people in extreme poverty is projected to decline, from 831 million people in 2025 to 793 million people in 2030. After 2030, the number of extremely poor people is expected to increase." [2]
Reasonable minds may of course differ about the future and all the problems and opportunities that lies ahead of us, but simply proclaiming there's "no reason" not to be "exceptionally optimistic" about the future, and recommending any skeptics to see a psychologist instead, is hard to classify as anything but a thought-terminating cliché. A society with such a mindset will find itself very ill prepared to solve a multitude of real and mounting challenges that require concerned minds and collective action.
"An area of oak-pine wood was selected East of Upton, and a tower was constructed that could raise and lower a canister from underground that contained radioactive source material, allowing for controlled dosage levels that emanated in a radius from the tower. The canister contained Cesium-137, which would emit ionizing gamma radiation without making the surrounding area radioactive itself."
Nobody is pretending fossil fuels are not producing value, if they did not nobody would bother using them in the first place. The argument is about the fact that they produce relatively short term value for the person using them, at the externalized expense of polluting the atmosphere and causing long-term environmental instability and destruction for every subsequent generation for the foreseeable future. Coastal regions (and whole islands like the Maldives) disapppearing under the ocean is immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. Ocean acidification destroying marine ecosystems is an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. More frequent and more extreme hurricanes is an an immense and ongoing value loss for humanity. And on and on...
I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas.
How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity.
I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment. Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient.
Im not sure our current pace of reducing emissions is that horrible. There are reasons to why it takes time. I might be too optimistic, but I think we will largely solve human issues. Nature as you point out, im worried about, although I know less about. And its hard to quantify what the value is for us.
If oil and gas would not exist, then liquid fuel would be produced from coal. With the latest processes the cost of production is like 80 dollars per barrel, but with processes that Germans developed during WWII it was probably like twice of that in modern money.
In alternative universe that would be cheaper due to massive scale, but the era of very cheap liquid fuel would never happen. So electrical cars on big scale will happen much earlier. And given that coal is much more evenly distributed on Earth, one can speculate that there would be much less reasons for conflicts.
I dont think this makes sense, given how insanely much more polluting coal is. You have to burn massive amounts of coal to power the liquid refinery, 50% of the energy lost essentially in the conversion process. In addition to that liquid coal has double the emissions of regular oil. Air quality would have been a disaster.
EVs in scale would have maybe happened sooner, but they would have give us much less value, and I think in the end reaching current EV tech would most likely have taken longer than it did with oil and gas, just due to industrialization and technological innovation would progress much slower without oil and gas...
I think advanced green tech in general would have taken much longer time to develop also on an industrial scale when limited by coal only. Not to speak of human welfare would also have improved much slower.
What do you mean would have been? It was a disaster. Perhaps you are too young or insufficiently well travelled to have experienced the effects of burning coal in, say the UK in the 1950s and 1960s or in China even in the last few decades.
Without oil the push to solar and wind would also have been accelerated, probably.
What is it about oil and as that you think made it accelerate semiconductor R&D?
Yeah, my point was that it would have been even worse without oil and gas.
solar, wind and semiconductors all require a very advanced petrochemical supply chain. You simply couldn't produce any of this without products derived from oil and gas.
> You simply couldn't produce any of this without products derived from oil and gas.
That is simply untrue. Everything that is made from oil or gas can also be made from organic feedstock. I don't mean to say that it would be easy and it would certainly be slower to start with but it is certainly not impossible. Remember that the first plastics were made before the age of oil.
One currently used plastic that does not use oil or gas as a feedstock is cellophane [1], another is rayon [2].
In 1920 in Berlin there were more electrical taxes than gasoline one. But cheap gasoline killed electrical car industry.
Without that electrical cars would proceed to develop and batteries with high capacity would happen much sooner.
As for pollution it would not be that bad. Fuel would be expensive and cars with combustion engines would not happen on massive scale. There would be much more freight by trains and nuclear energy would be developed on much bigger scale.
You are talking as if oil and gas delayed the future, which I dont think makes sense at all.
I think we are underestimating all the derivatives we use from oil and gas here.
I think this is all very optimistic. I think not having oil and gas would have been a major setback to global progress I dont think it would have made us more advanced within batteries or electrical cars than we are today. And especially not even close to overall general global progress we have reached today.
> I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity.
People who oppose the fossil fuel industry do not suggest we return to the 17th century tomorrow. They suggest being less wasteful with the resources we have (nobody would die from eating lentils instead of beef, even though this would cause 98% reduced CO2 emissions) and investing in alternative solutions that achieve similar outcomes but cause less harm to the environment. Some things being more expensive or less convenient would not be a global humanitarian catastrophe, and since you strongly believe humans are immensely adaptable and resilient I think you would agree we could adapt to this as well if working together.
> I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment.
No, it's about how much you are willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the current generation to preserve the quality of live of subsequent generations. The worry about causing instability in the environment is not an aesthetic concern about the purity of nature being lost, the worry is that such instability will cause real and tangible death and suffering for real humans and have long term negative consequences for future generations.
> Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient.
You will have to provide some better source than your gut feeling and a cheerful attitude for me to believe you on this over the countless of people who have done actual analysis and vehemently disagree with you. Just a single example to get you started:
"This report’s projections of morbidity and mortality from climate-intensified natural disasters, cumulatively close to 15 million deaths, more than two billion healthy life years lost, and $12.5 trillion in economic losses by 2050 bring into focus the dimensions of the crisis. The risk from global warming threatens to destabilize both the healthcare ecosystems and the planet. [1]"
You claim to be against irrational decisions, but seem to base your "rational" view on very simplistic analysis about economic value always being good and the 17th century being bad, combined with a scoopful of wishful thinking.
Man, come on.. There are even at least two comments from people in this thread arguing this exact point. Ill promise you its frequency is even higher in the real world than on HN.
You must not be very much exposed to the environmental movement, or be much online, if you havent seen this.
> Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living.
What are you even basing this assumption on? Just quickly comparing the highest ranking countries by Human Development Index with the highest government budgets per capita and the highest income tax rates would, if anything, support the opposite conclusion.
This is potentially a long conversation; but why would you start with rankings like this, which only go back a relatively short time?
Broadly speaking, human welfare got a lot better in the last three hundred years, due to productivity improvements that were tied to things like property rights, joint stock companies, availability of credit, &c.
We haven't really found a good alternative to it. It may seem to you that countries like Austria, &c, are doing the right thing by taking very large amounts of GDP out of the hands of private enterprise and using it "for good" instead of "for growth"; but that is just eating the seed corn. It looks good in the short term.
The HDI ranking has been published for 36 years now. And for many of those countries I would feel confident claiming the trend goes back to at least WW2, altough you would of course have to use other, contemporary metrics to support that to get a rigorous analysis.
If the initial step in your theory about human wellfare is to selectively ignore the last 35 or 75 years of history in the highest wellfare countries on earth, I think you should at least consider the possibility that your theory might be somewhat out of date.
Most of Europe post-war was very poor. I'm not sure the trend could go back as far as that.
How are you weighing the trend you highlight relative to overall long run success of private ordering, stock companies, readily available credit, strong private property protections, &c, &c, in raising people's standard of living?
There's only a limited amount of context and decisions that can be effectively communicated informally without looking at the code. Sometimes it is required that people look at the actual suggested implementation, and when doing so they might spot fundamental issues that had not been found beforehand. The conventional format for doing such a review is a PR.
