Market debut of AI company behind Claude chatbot will be one of largest in US history, a test of its financial viability

Anthropic has publicly filed for a stock market listing, one of the largest debuts in history. The company’s float on the US market is likely to be a high-water mark in the multitrillion-dollar AI boom and a test of its financial viability.

Analysts and investors have valued the San Francisco-based company, founded in 2021, at more than $1.5tn. The company, which will will list under the symbol ANT, confidentially filed with US financial regulators for an initial public offering in June.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Economics degrees are astrology for white men. This only reinforces that point.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    As someone with an economics-heavy business degree, I have said this since my intro to economics course. The fact that there are "schools", and that some mainstream theories last only for years, not even decades, and that all governments who come in will "try" a "recipe" to see what works, is telling enough. The "laws" of economics are "kinda", "usually", "generally", and above all "conditional". There are a few things that are almost laws, like the fact that humanity is driven by the seven cardinal sins of which most can be translated into economic characteristics, and cycles (which we are hell bent in forgetting every time we are at a crest).

    I'm thermodynamic's bitch. That shit is. You can't cheat them laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    The fact that the seven cardinal sins have officially been codified as a principle of economics is... telling...

    What are the primary drivers of humanity? Lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, wrath, and pride.

    "Now how can we exploit that to extract more profit" is a question only a sociopath would ask. It explains so much about industry today though, especially marketing and yes, social media.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    And gambling, let's not forget the casinos and lottery raffles

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The kind of gambling where the biggest losers are the ones who are not participating, and they keep whining that the winners should give them something too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Astrology has more reality than economics does. At least the movements and positions of the planets is something real.

    People used to navigate by it, plant and harvest by it, nomads would migrate by the movements of the stars.

    Economics is just... "How much confirmation bias can we use to rationalize conclusions we've already determined in advance, in order to convince governments and investors to give us money that doesn't even exist?" and "How can we frame these numbers to keep people from rioting?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    At least the movements and positions of the planets is something real.

    Yes but being sad because mercury is in gatorade or whatever isn't "real", it's literally prescribed to you by someone who says that when planets do X then your mood or success in whatever endeavors must be Y and Z

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If the only thing you've heard about astrology is the "newspaper horoscopes" that attempt to be prescriptive in that way, then I could see having that opinion.

    I would also argue that people who read those horoscopes and take them seriously, also do not understand astrology.

    My point is that "Mercury in retrograde" is a real phenomenon, unlike "self-regulating market" or "rational/ethical consumer," or any of the other things economists use to try to justify deregulation, austerity, and "infinite growth."

    My argument isn't that Mercury retrograde has any effect on your mood. That's a claim I didn't make. But from the perspective of earth, there are times when Mercury appears to reverse its course. The other planets do it too. Hence, it is "more real than economics."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    There absolutely are real phenomenon in economics. There are none in astrology that have been proven.

    But from the perspective of earth, there are times when Mercury appears to reverse its course. The other planets do it too

    But that's not astrology. Astrology is the art of giving it mysterious meanings. Mercury being in retrograde is an astronomical phenomenon.

    The problem with economics is that it's essentially sociology and you obviously can't make absolute laws about things that involve people. But I'll give you two simple examples that absolutely have been proven time and time again:

    1. Induced demand - if you make something more available (cheaper), that in of itself is usually enough to make demand for it higher.

    2. Inelastic demand - if something is an absolute necessity then it becoming more expensive doesn't reduce demand to 0 (healthcare, fuel).

    #2, incidentally, is one reason why markets will never be truly efficient and need to be regulated. The equilibrium of supply and demand can't be what determines the price of healthcare, transportation, etc.

    Economics blows up when you try to make things absolute rules, or when you try to rationalize markets that have people with tons of money FOMOing bullshit based on marketing. Two problems come to mind:

    1. The P/E ratio of 10 is stated as a rule in investing, but there's no reason that's the exact right amount, it's really just something that on average, people buying stocks find a sensible return rate because similar rates could be achieved elsewhere too.

    2. Conversely to the last point, people marketing IPOs for companies making zero profit will convince you that really horrible P/E is fine because those companies will take over the entire global market for whatever. See, that'd be true IFF there's a market AND they remain the biggest player. Just because a P/E ratio of 10 being optimal isn't an absolute law of the universe doesn't mean a P/E ratio of 1000 is any good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    As stated to you in a other comment. Astrology and celestial navigation are not the same. The only similarities they have is relying on the position of planets and celestial bodies. Astrology is pure pseudoscience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago

    Seeing as economics is also a pseudoscience, I don't see how that contradicts my point at all.

    I said the movements of the stars and planets as described by astrology is a real phenomenon. Unless you want to dispute that, you're arguing against a strawman of your own construction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    You’re confusing astrology and astronomy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    No, astronomy is the modern science of measuring and studying outer space. It grew out of astrology in the same way that the modern science of chemistry grew out of alchemy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Astrology and celestial navigation are not the same thing. Astrology has nothing to do with navigation or planting/harvesting cycles. The only similarities astrology has with any of that is the position of planets, but astrology is strictly a divinatory practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago

    If you don't see the inherent connection between those two things, then I don't know what to tell you.

    If an ancient boat captain was consulting an ephemeris to determine their exact position, who do you think wrote/published the ephemeris?

    Long before written language was ever invented, who do you think was studying the stars and saying "now is the time to plant"?

    If that's "divinatory" then so be it, but looking at it from a modern lens of how the term is commonly used today, is anachronistic. And it doesn't change my original point anyway, because the movements of the stars are real, unlike the so-called "laws" of economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)