I'm not responsible for deciding whether companies IPO. I'm also not fully apprised of Anthropic's current financials. I have done research deep dives into private and public companies for investment reasons.
All that said, my instinct is that the unprecedented context of Anthropic's IPO is not enough of a reason to prevent it from doing said IPO. If anthropic has insufficient capital and is operating at a significant loss, with no way to model a transition to profitability, or is over-valued, those are reasons I can understand.
My issue with the existential risk reason, is that there is also a risk that anthropic disrupts and deflates multiple industries while capturing that value for itself. If the public are blocked from participating in it's success, that is also a risk to the public. To people who are skeptical about AI and assume this is all a big scam I'm sure what I'm saying sounds delusional or like ajoke... But what I struggle with is how the logic can run one way but not the other.
Given the unprecedented potential impact at stake, the risks, the potential rewards, and the risks of not participating in the potential rewards, all seem similarly unprecedented.
Is this just a case of someone assuming the risks far outweigh the rewards? Is it that simple?
I'm not responsible for deciding whether companies IPO. I'm also not fully apprised of Anthropic's current financials. I have done research deep dives into private and public companies for investment reasons.
All that said, my instinct is that the unprecedented context of Anthropic's IPO is not enough of a reason to prevent it from doing said IPO. If anthropic has insufficient capital and is operating at a significant loss, with no way to model a transition to profitability, or is over-valued, those are reasons I can understand.
My issue with the existential risk reason, is that there is also a risk that anthropic disrupts and deflates multiple industries while capturing that value for itself. If the public are blocked from participating in it's success, that is also a risk to the public. To people who are skeptical about AI and assume this is all a big scam I'm sure what I'm saying sounds delusional or like ajoke... But what I struggle with is how the logic can run one way but not the other.
Given the unprecedented potential impact at stake, the risks, the potential rewards, and the risks of not participating in the potential rewards, all seem similarly unprecedented.
Is this just a case of someone assuming the risks far outweigh the rewards? Is it that simple?
Is this weighting based on vibes?
Can anyone pull this apart for me?