The individual is how he is but he's not saying anything insane. AI is not his domain of expertise yet he seems to have a pretty good grasp of how it works.
He's saying what we all know: Anthropic has no moat, OpenAI has no moat (and btw how'd that work? "AnthrOpenAIpic has a moat but nobody else does"? So it's some kind of a dualmoatopoly?).
We all saw the benchs for Google's latest models: they're beating AnthrOpenAIpic on basically every single bench.
Some of us are working with chinese models and they're now 6 months behind anymore.
So he's saying: no moat, attempt at regulatory capture to block chinese open-weight models, it doesn't mean the whole market is going to crash hard (btw a big part of the market --and already before yesterday-- had already crashed quite hard, which you don't notice if you're only in indexes for a few companies have pulled everybody up).
To this sounds... Reasonable?
What is he saying that's controversial here? When you see Google's Argon 4, are you really convinced Anthropic has a moat and an IPO valuation at 5% of the entire US GDP that's justified and that there's a possibility it'll 10x to 50% of the GDP?
Does anyone here really think Anthropic can do the kind of multiplier on its IPO that we saw with Amazon, Meta, Google, etc.?
Is it really that controversial to say that, for an IPO, Anthropic is overvalued?
Here's my bet: in a year Micron (ticker MU) went 10x in value in a year. 24x in value since after the 2022 tech flash crash. My bet is that Anthropic (ticker ANT) won't 10x in a year. And won't 24x in 4 years.
Save your time & do not watch this garbage.
It is just monkeys sitting around a table and shouting. Not a civil discussion or an insightful analysis.
Do you have any counter points or just doing the same thing?
I am trying to help other people to not waste their time.
I've never seen Steve Eisman talk before. Steve Carell's depiction of Eisman in The Big Short was on point.
The individual is how he is but he's not saying anything insane. AI is not his domain of expertise yet he seems to have a pretty good grasp of how it works.
He's saying what we all know: Anthropic has no moat, OpenAI has no moat (and btw how'd that work? "AnthrOpenAIpic has a moat but nobody else does"? So it's some kind of a dualmoatopoly?).
We all saw the benchs for Google's latest models: they're beating AnthrOpenAIpic on basically every single bench.
Some of us are working with chinese models and they're now 6 months behind anymore.
So he's saying: no moat, attempt at regulatory capture to block chinese open-weight models, it doesn't mean the whole market is going to crash hard (btw a big part of the market --and already before yesterday-- had already crashed quite hard, which you don't notice if you're only in indexes for a few companies have pulled everybody up).
To this sounds... Reasonable?
What is he saying that's controversial here? When you see Google's Argon 4, are you really convinced Anthropic has a moat and an IPO valuation at 5% of the entire US GDP that's justified and that there's a possibility it'll 10x to 50% of the GDP?
Does anyone here really think Anthropic can do the kind of multiplier on its IPO that we saw with Amazon, Meta, Google, etc.?
Is it really that controversial to say that, for an IPO, Anthropic is overvalued?
Here's my bet: in a year Micron (ticker MU) went 10x in value in a year. 24x in value since after the 2022 tech flash crash. My bet is that Anthropic (ticker ANT) won't 10x in a year. And won't 24x in 4 years.