I think many people believe this is an absolute bubble, that these valuations do not correspond to fundamental values of the business and are just based on promises and fraud.
I don't like having such a black and white view of the world though, so I would be interested in seeing if there is any sane reason for these valuations. Do you think these businesses would be as highly-valued if there was not all this hype around? How would you justify this valuation?
LLMs are amazing and probably as important a technology as electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, or smartphones, but $61.5 billion can still be waaaay overvalued for Anthropic.
Of course, as a start-up you base your valuation on potential in the future, which should be well calculated based on how capable your employees are, how innovative your product is and what are the expected earnings.
Do you think Anthropic is still a startup? That's an honest question, Wikipedia certainly seems to think so, (Anthropic PBC is an American artificial intelligence public-benefit startup founded in 2021.). I would typically say that once you have 61B valuation, you have to have a fundamentally sound business, and thus cease to be a startup, but I don't know where the line is drawn.
Bringing up fraud is jarring. Failed bets are not fraud. Fraud is a huge accusation. There's a huge distinction between the twos.
> which should be well calculated based on how capable your employees are, how innovative your product is and what are the expected earnings.
If anyone can calculate this accurately, they would easily become a billionaire. Let's not pretend you (or anyone) know a good calculation lmao.
Just because your personal "calculation" doesn't deem Anthropic worthy of the valuation / investment (and you might eventually be right) ... doesn't mean it is a fraud.
Yes. The investors here are making a bet that AI goes supermassive and brings in a load of money.
Some people at anthropic almost certainly do think they're going to be successful. I suspect that at least some of them are engaging in salesmanship at a level that makes it fraud.
It would be helpful if you would identify exactly which claim you thought was extraordinary so that people could engage with your comment productively.
Is it right that they raise $3.5B, projected to burn $3.0B this year with ~$1.2B in revenue _expected_ this year?
So either prices are going to rocket up at some point and/or massive efficiencies? That doesn’t seem like a good position. I like their models, but not sure how they’ll survive long term.
I think many people believe this is an absolute bubble, that these valuations do not correspond to fundamental values of the business and are just based on promises and fraud.
I don't like having such a black and white view of the world though, so I would be interested in seeing if there is any sane reason for these valuations. Do you think these businesses would be as highly-valued if there was not all this hype around? How would you justify this valuation?
> many people believe this is an absolute bubble
The authors of "The internet is just a fad"?
LLMs are amazing and probably as important a technology as electricity, the internal combustion engine, radio, or smartphones, but $61.5 billion can still be waaaay overvalued for Anthropic.
I don't think any startup in the past based their valuation on fundamentals. Not even the wildly successful ones like Facebook.
People can't seem to distinguish between promises, bets, and fraud.
Of course, as a start-up you base your valuation on potential in the future, which should be well calculated based on how capable your employees are, how innovative your product is and what are the expected earnings.
Do you think Anthropic is still a startup? That's an honest question, Wikipedia certainly seems to think so, (Anthropic PBC is an American artificial intelligence public-benefit startup founded in 2021.). I would typically say that once you have 61B valuation, you have to have a fundamentally sound business, and thus cease to be a startup, but I don't know where the line is drawn.
Bringing up fraud is jarring. Failed bets are not fraud. Fraud is a huge accusation. There's a huge distinction between the twos.
> which should be well calculated based on how capable your employees are, how innovative your product is and what are the expected earnings.
If anyone can calculate this accurately, they would easily become a billionaire. Let's not pretend you (or anyone) know a good calculation lmao.
Just because your personal "calculation" doesn't deem Anthropic worthy of the valuation / investment (and you might eventually be right) ... doesn't mean it is a fraud.
Yes. The investors here are making a bet that AI goes supermassive and brings in a load of money.
Some people at anthropic almost certainly do think they're going to be successful. I suspect that at least some of them are engaging in salesmanship at a level that makes it fraud.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It would be helpful if you would identify exactly which claim you thought was extraordinary so that people could engage with your comment productively.
This one: "I suspect that at least some of them are engaging in salesmanship at a level that makes it fraud."
Is it right that they raise $3.5B, projected to burn $3.0B this year with ~$1.2B in revenue _expected_ this year?
So either prices are going to rocket up at some point and/or massive efficiencies? That doesn’t seem like a good position. I like their models, but not sure how they’ll survive long term.
or usecase/adoption increase ? also : capex!=operating costs
> capex!=operating costs
True, but when your only moat is capabilities, and those degrade with time and use, it might as well be.
http://archive.today/2025.03.03-183004/https://www.ft.com/co...