←back to thread

Anthropic raises $13B Series F

(www.anthropic.com)
585 points meetpateltech | 10 comments | 02 Sep 25 16:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.235s | source | bottom
Show context
jdoliner ◴[02 Sep 25 16:21 UTC] No.45105172[source]▶
Every round Anthropic raises twists the knife deeper in SBF. If only he could have survived the downturn his Antropic investment alone probably could have papered over the other loses.
replies(11): >>45105195 #>>45105238 #>>45105292 #>>45105321 #>>45105362 #>>45105437 #>>45105457 #>>45105972 #>>45106292 #>>45106294 #>>45108286 #
stravant ◴[02 Sep 25 16:32 UTC] No.45105362[source]▶
That assumes he would have stopped with the shenanigans, which is a pretty big if.
replies(1): >>45105587 #
1. Symmetry ◴[02 Sep 25 16:44 UTC] No.45105587[source]▶
Proudly proclaiming on the Conversations With Tyler podcast that given a double or nothing bet with a 51% chance of success he'd keep playing forever.
replies(3): >>45105755 #>>45106147 #>>45108472 #
2. AnimalMuppet ◴[02 Sep 25 16:56 UTC] No.45105755[source]▶
Not forever. He'd have nothing soon enough.
3. arduanika ◴[02 Sep 25 17:22 UTC] No.45106147[source]▶
It is probably just a coincidence, but it's darkly funny how well this lines up with the strategy described in a rather infamous LessWrong post. The title is "Solutions to the Altruist's burden: the Quantum Billionaire Trick", but you probably know it by a different name. The author is one Roko Mijic.
replies(1): >>45115538 #
4. twostorytower ◴[02 Sep 25 20:20 UTC] No.45108472[source]▶
Isn't that just the right thing to do, statistically? Vegas has been operating profitably this way for decades.
replies(2): >>45109201 #>>45109647 #
5. FergusArgyll ◴[02 Sep 25 21:20 UTC] No.45109201[source]▶
The context was double or nothing the entire human population of the universe.
6. roncesvalles ◴[02 Sep 25 21:57 UTC] No.45109647[source]▶
It's not the same due to the Law of Large Numbers. The risk involved in many small 51% bets is very different from the risk in a single all-or-nothing 51% bet.
replies(1): >>45113119 #
7. lelanthran ◴[03 Sep 25 07:19 UTC] No.45113119{3}[source]▶
> The risk involved in many small 51% bets is very different from the risk in a single all-or-nothing 51% bet.

Right, but parent didn't say anything about an all-in bet, just double-or-nothing on a positive EV bet.

Frankly, I'd repeatedly bet on a positive EV bet too; it's a guaranteed win if you're allowed to go on for as long as you want to.

8. rsynnott ◴[03 Sep 25 13:28 UTC] No.45115538[source]▶
Probably not a total confidence; it’s EA/rationalist theory taken to ludicrous extremes in both cases.
replies(1): >>45117620 #
9. rsynnott ◴[03 Sep 25 16:24 UTC] No.45117620{3}[source]▶
*coincidence
replies(1): >>45117976 #
10. arduanika ◴[03 Sep 25 16:51 UTC] No.45117976{4}[source]▶
Yeah, not a total coincidence of thinking style. I just don't think it's likely that SBF was literally thinking about Roko's post as he did the crimes.