←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: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
code4tee ◴[02 Sep 25 16:42 UTC] No.45105551[source]▶
Impressive round but it seems unlikely this game can go on much longer before something implodes. Given the amount of cash you need to set of fire to stay relevant it’s becoming nearly impossible for all but a few players to stay competitive, but those players have yet to demonstrate a viable business model.

With all these models converging, the big players aren’t demonstrating a real technical innovation moat. Everyone knows how to build these models now, it just takes a ton of cash to do it.

This whole thing is turning into an expensive race to the bottom. Cool tech, but bad business. A lot of VC folks gonna lose their shirt in this space.

replies(7): >>45105789 #>>45105933 #>>45105952 #>>45105968 #>>45106173 #>>45109023 #>>45115194 #
ijidak ◴[02 Sep 25 17:24 UTC] No.45106173[source]▶
I think we underestimate the insane amount of idle cash the rich have. We know that the top 1% owns something like 80% of all resources, so they don't need that money.

They can afford to burn a good chunk of global wealth so that they can have even more global wealth.

Even at the current rates of insanity, the wealthy have spent a tiny fraction of their wealth on AI.

Bezos could put up this $13 billion himself and remain a top five richest man in the world.

(Remember Elon cost himself $40 billion because of a tweet and still was fine!)

This is a technology that could replace a sizable fraction of humamkind as a labor input.

I'm sure the rich can dig much deeper than this.

replies(1): >>45107268 #
not_the_fda ◴[02 Sep 25 18:40 UTC] No.45107268[source]▶
"This is a technology that could replace a sizable fraction of humamkind as a labor input."

And if it does? What happens when a sizable fraction of humamkind is hungry and can't find work? It usually doesn't turn out so well for the rich.

replies(3): >>45108189 #>>45110145 #>>45112483 #
dweekly ◴[02 Sep 25 19:54 UTC] No.45108189[source]▶
I don't think most folks think very hard about where most wealth comes from but imagine it just sort of exists in a fixed quantity or is pulled from the ground like coal or diamonds - there's a fixed amount of it, and if there are very rich people, it must be because they took the coal/diamonds away from other people who need it. This leads to catchy slogans.

But it's pretty obvious wealth can be created and destroyed. The creation of wealth comes from trade, which generally comes from a vibrant middle class which not only earns a fair bit but also spends it. Wars and revolutions are effective at destroying wealth and (sometimes) equitably redistributing what's left.

Both the modern left and modern right seem to have arrived at a consensus that trade frictions are a good way to generate (or at least preserve) wealth, while the history of economics indicates quite the contrary. This was recently best pilloried by a comic that showed a town under siege and the besieging army commenting that this was likely to make the city residents wealthy by encouraging self-reliance.

We need abundant education and broad prosperity for stability - even (and maybe especially) for the ultra wealthy. Most things we enjoy require absolute and not relative wealth. Would you rather be the richest person in a poor country or the poorest of the upper class in a developed economy?

replies(2): >>45109669 #>>45111799 #
ChadNauseam ◴[03 Sep 25 02:50 UTC] No.45111799[source]▶
> The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...]

I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. Trade allows specialization which does increase wealth massively, no doubt. And because of how useful specialization is, all wealth creation involves trade somewhere. But specialization is just one component of wealth creation. It stands alongside labor, innovation, and probably others.

replies(1): >>45113053 #
1. lelanthran ◴[03 Sep 25 07:08 UTC] No.45113053{3}[source]▶
>> > The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...]

> I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it.

At a very foundational level, all wealth comes from trade, even when there is no currency involved.

When two parties voluntarily make a trade, each party gets more value out of the trade than they had before, so the sum total of value after the trade is, by definition alone, greater than the sum total of value before the trade.

Small example: I offer to trade you a bag of potatoes for 2 hours of your time to fix my tractor, and you accept.

This trade only happens because:

1. I value a running tractor more than I value my bag of potatoes

2. You value a bag of potatoes more than you value 2 hours of your time.

After the trade is done, I have more value (running tractor) and you have more value (a bag of potatoes), hence the total value after the trade is more than the total value before the trade.

The only thing that creates value is trade. It's the source of value.

replies(3): >>45113646 #>>45114467 #>>45132164 #
2. utyop22 ◴[03 Sep 25 09:00 UTC] No.45113646[source]▶
Ultimately real wealth is all about enhancing the well-being of individuals in society by way of an exchange of assets.

All we have done is become more elaborate and sophisticated in this stuff but at the core, its been the same throughout much of time.

3. elbear ◴[03 Sep 25 11:22 UTC] No.45114467[source]▶
There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. They see commerce as a zero-sum game.
replies(1): >>45115356 #
4. lelanthran ◴[03 Sep 25 13:14 UTC] No.45115356[source]▶
> There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option.

It's not a deficit if the value they assign to what they get is higher than the value they assign to what they give.

If they are giving away something they value highly for something they value less highly, then it's not a voluntary trade, now is it?

replies(1): >>45135690 #
5. zestyping ◴[04 Sep 25 21:04 UTC] No.45132164[source]▶
Wow, that's a massive blind spot you've got there.

The value comes from doing the thing. Fixing the tractor creates value. Growing and harvesting the potatoes creates value.

Trading the potatoes for something you value more, yes, also creates additional value. But notice that potatoes have value to you even if you don't trade them for anything.

If you choke on a grape and a helpful volunteer saves your life, they create value. Nothing was exchanged, but they sure as hell generated wealth right there.

Labour and voluntary trade both create value. I wonder what sort of mindset one must have to forget that labour exists.

replies(1): >>45135338 #
6. lelanthran ◴[05 Sep 25 05:47 UTC] No.45135338[source]▶
> The value comes from doing the thing. Fixing the tractor creates value. Growing and harvesting the potatoes creates value.

The value from value doesn't come by default; it's not a given.

Neither of those things create value unless they are actually used.

Fixing a tractor you neither use nor trade does not create value.

Growing potatoes you will never eat does not create value.

So, sure, labour can create value, but it's not a guarantee. Trade, OTOH, always creates value.

replies(2): >>45150879 #>>45153084 #
7. elbear ◴[05 Sep 25 06:54 UTC] No.45135690{3}[source]▶
Yes, but people don't always make voluntary trades. Like staying in a job they hate, because they believe they will find it difficult/impossible to find a better option.
replies(1): >>45135832 #
8. lelanthran ◴[05 Sep 25 07:17 UTC] No.45135832{4}[source]▶
> Yes, but people don't always make voluntary trades. Like staying in a job they hate, because they believe they will find it difficult/impossible to find a better option.

That's still a value assignment: they value eating and paying rent more highly than job satisfaction.

9. zestyping ◴[06 Sep 25 16:52 UTC] No.45150879{3}[source]▶
Also wrong. You can always destroy value by making a mistake. Trading and then realizing you made a mistake, just like investing labour and then realizing you made a mistake, does not create value. Trading is not special in this regard.

Value can be created either way: through labour or trade.

Regardless, your statement that all wealth is created by trade is false.

10. ◴[06 Sep 25 21:36 UTC] No.45153084{3}[source]▶