Anthropic raises $13B Series F

(www.anthropic.com)

585 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | 02 Sep 25 16:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

xpe ◴[02 Sep 25 17:30 UTC] No.45106287[source]▶

Remember the YouTube acquisition? Many probably don’t since it was 2006. $1.65B. To many, it seemed bonkers.

Narrow point: In general, one person’s impression of what is crazy does not fare well against market-generated information.

Broader point: If you think you know more than the market, all other things equal, you’re probably wrong.

Lesson: Only searching for reasons why you are right is a fishing expedition.

If the investment levels are irrational, to what degree are they? How and why? How will it play out specifically? Predicting these accurately is hard.

replies(5): >>45106974 #>>45107176 #>>45107369 #>>45109732 #>>45110507 #

slashdave ◴[02 Sep 25 23:36 UTC] No.45110507[source]▶

>>45106287 #

> Only searching for reasons why you are right is a fishing expedition.

Not to be mean, but aren't you being a little hypercritical here, bringing up your bespoke example of YouTube?

replies(2): >>45111064 #>>45111131 #

1. xpe ◴[03 Sep 25 00:53 UTC] No.45111064[source]▶

>>45110507 #

I don’t interpret the above as mean-spirited comment, but it does miss the point of the example I gave; namely, people second-guessing a market (or information heavily influenced by markets, like a new funding round) tend to lose. (Of course there are examples in the other direction, but they are less common and do not deserve equal emphasis.)

In general, a market synthesizes more information than any one individual, and when they operate well it is unlikely for an individual is going to beat them.

This is a well known general pattern, so if someone wants to argue in the other direction, they need to be ready to offer very strong evidence and reasoning why the market is wrong — and even when they do, they’re still probably going to be wrong.

↑