4 ms·

Anthropic IPO filing will show AI backlash as a risk factor, sources say

37 points by newsomix9xl 2mo ago

joebuckwilliams 2mo ago
The bigger risk is going to be the fundamental inability to meet their buildout commitments. There’s not enough money in the world.
1123581321 2mo ago
This is a non-story; for those who haven’t read them, prospectuses include every potential risk under the sun. There will be risks that never make the news alongside the exciting backlash.
- dofm 2mo ago
  “Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising, will fight to prevent us establishing infrastructure, may pass laws to limit our activities in their states, and will extend that hatred to our major investors, potentially materially damaging their businesses” is not a common thing in an IPO prospectus, I imagine, for quite obvious reasons. But that is the gist of the situation is it not? If it’s an honest statement, it is going to say something like this. Which prospectus got close to anything like this? People hate SpaceX products less.
  - montagg 2mo ago
    The non-story part is that they would include this risk even if it were 5 people.
    - sumeno 2mo ago
      I could easily find 5 people who hate SpaceX and yet that wasn’t mentioned as a risk I think you’re going to have to provide evidence that this is a commonly documented risk
      - jmalicki 2mo ago
        "Our AI products and X platform are subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding privacy, cybersecurity, data use, data combination, data protection, content, AI, competition, youth protection, safety, consumer protection and notification, advertising, e-commerce, sanctions, export controls, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and we could be required to make changes to our products and business practices, and be exposed to monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, declines in user growth or engagement, or loss of customers, or other harm to our AI products and X platform. " "Certain of our AI products, including Grok, offer features or modes designed to generate more candid, direct, or less reserved or irreverent outputs, such as “Spicy” Imagine Mode and “Unhinged” Voice Mode. These features are intended to provide users with greater flexibility and control in how they use our tools. Because these modes may be more irreverent and harsher than our standard offerings, they present heightened risks, including reputational harm, the generation of potentially explicit content and misinformation or deceptive outputs, potential nonconsensual or exploitative imagery, intellectual property infringement, or content that could be viewed as exploitative, harmful, harassing, abusive, or discriminatory. The availability of such features may also increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, litigation, or claims of harm, as well as reputational damage, user or advertiser backlash, or limitations on our ability to distribute or monetize our products in certain jurisdictions or through certain partners." Or the wonderful: "We, Mr. Musk, and other companies Mr. Musk is affiliated with frequently receive an immense amount of media attention. The actions and statements of Mr. Musk and his affiliated ventures, whether or not directly relating to us, may draw significant public attention and scrutiny to us and could potentially have a positive or negative impact on our business, relationships with customers and regulators, or stock price."
        1123581321 2mo ago
        Thank you. Hopefully a good lesson for the GP to actually read prospectuses before making claims about them!
        deleted 2mo ago
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - jmalicki 2mo ago
    Uber and Airbnb both had similar risks in their S1s, for obvious reasons.
    - cavem0nkey 2mo ago
      And both have been damaging to society. And are getting fined and chased out of certain countries. Why would you throw investment in this unless you’re just leveraging the growth in the time it takes for regulatory issues to appear? Which is terribly unethical. Wall to wall bastards. I’d rather die poor than contribute to the further decline of society.
      - dofm 2mo ago
        They have but this reply was a fully fair answer to my point; perhaps there are more.
      - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
        Maybe those who seek and profit from the decline in our society also want to promote divisiveness? Maybe divisiveness itself, is part of the problem?
        cavem0nkey 2mo ago
        Yep. We’re tribal apes. This is just a foot on the accelerator.
    - dofm 2mo ago
      I was thinking maybe Uber but I was not sure it could have been that bad. They would have had states pushing back but against a very popular product with users. But Airbnb, good point: they would have talked about the risks of states curtailing their businesses. It’s still a very unusual level of hatred, I would say.
      - jmalicki 2mo ago
        Uber called out that they were aggressively doing an end run around both taxi licensing AND minimum wage laws and facing significant pushback on both fronts, among many other risks.
  - jryle70 2mo ago
    "Everyone hates us but they can't have enough of us. Our revenue can't stop rising" Anthropic's credit line is now $10B - [0], and the IPO is expected to beat or match SpaceX - [1] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-pre-ipo-credit-facility-120320361.html https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-p... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic-expects-to-match-spacex-s-record-ipo-size-or-top-it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic...
    - dofm 2mo ago
      Not what we are discussing.
    - nozzlegear 2mo ago
      This doesn't really refute what they said. The fact that they make a lot of money doesn't mean the public doesn't hate them or that they won't find themselves facing anti-AI backlash in the near or far future.
      - jryle70 2mo ago
        Huh? "Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising" First of all everyone? Based on what? Second of all "they hate our guts and the core of what we're doing (fundamentals), but they can't have enough of us". Are you sure the society (everyone) is that self loathe or HN is in a giant bubble? AI clearly causes disruption, anxiety, uncertainty, and will be negative for certain groups, just like anything with major impacts in the history. But hate by everyone? people who consider themselves smart and well informed should really be more objective and level headed.
    - owebmaster 2mo ago
      > "Everyone hates us but they can't have enough of us. Our revenue can't stop rising" Anthropic is far from profitable so using Claude makes them lose money. There's a fictional scenario where they make this money back with a huge profit but it's getting very hard to believe this gonna happen.
  - bragr 2mo ago
    I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the prospectuses of many controversial companies spanning oil, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, adult entertainment, guns, gambling, defense, etc... Anything someone is trying hard to ban.
    - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
      Why is AI in the category of oil, cigs, and beer? Its software ....
      - bragr 2mo ago
        Social media and gaming companies probably have it too
      - dragontamer 2mo ago
        The electricity usage is off the charts. Every place that gets a data center has their electricity prices go up. Consumers are now fighting to stop data centers from coming into their hometowns. It's not like Data centers have lots of jobs that benefit a community anyway. It's basically a building that eats a local city's resources and gives barely anything back in return. At best, an AI data center is a year job for the local blue collar workers. A temporary benefit at best, while the price of electricity rises will negate any local benefits by a long shot. Plus water and noise, and other such issues.
        dofm 2mo ago
        I think that was maybe a rhetorical question, but that indeed sums it up.
        ToValueFunfetti 2mo ago
        Just read this interview[1] the other day that contends that the blue collar workers, or at least their union leaders, are thrilled about the data center boom. There are loads of these projects underway and they show no sign of stopping, so the fact that it's only work for a few years per building hardly matters. Plus, the pay is great because the projects have to fight each other for labor. It also says that localities competed for these projects because of the substantial tax revenue they'll bring in for the communities. Separately, while electrity usage is a valid concern with respect to pollution, data centers are not really driving electric costs up for residents, with (maybe?) a couple exceptions. Noise is likewise a non-issue by-and-large with (definitely existent) rare exceptions. And the water usage issue is totally invented; data centers use a tiny fraction of the water other industries that would otherwise occupy industrially-zoned land use. You didn't mention it, but the interview also contends that the "this will take our jobs" angle that gets passed around here as a reason isn't on anybody's mind. Instead, it seems that the AI companies used NDAs to prevent localities from efficiently pricing their deals. That's obviously sketchy on its own and worthy of attack, plus as a bonus it prevents governments from making statements to clarify that the populist narratives that surround the things and are, bluntly, false. [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-centers https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- Betelbuddy 2mo ago
  Well there is a story, and the story is we are going to have an Anthropic IPO? Believe it when I see it...
  - mihaelm 2mo ago
    We've known Anthropic has filed for an IPO since early June.
    - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
      Still no S-1, though. I really want to see it, have been on the edge of my seat all summer. I reckon they'll chicken out, though.
- Betelbuddy 2mo ago
  One risk they should include is: Our vision is working on a product and business model, that if we succeed, will make our business model and product obsolete.
  - JacobAsmuth 2mo ago
    Not a risk.
  - 1123581321 2mo ago
    I expect this will effectively be stated, that their success will depend on developing a succession of products and evolving the company in response to the market climate.
jqpabc123 2mo ago
negative sentiment towards AI and data centers will be listed as a risk factor The fact that the technology can "hallucinate" and is unreliable is not just a "sentiment" --- it is a well established fact. And it is more than a risk, it is virtually guaranteed to happen if you use it repeatedly. Calling it "sentiment" is like an "alternative fact".
- uejfiweun 2mo ago
  ...what? I don't think they're talking about hallucinations here, they're talking about public opinion.
  - jqpabc123 2mo ago
    Is it just an "opinion" if it is based on proven facts?
    - LPisGood 2mo ago
      Yes. Let’s say I saw a person kill someone. That’s a fact, but my perception of them would be low; that is an opinion. I think it’s really swell how the last 10 years have made it so the basic difference between fact and opinion is not totally obvious.
      - jqpabc123 2mo ago
        We're talking stated "risk" to the public. Using your example --- as far as "risk" to the public is concerned, which would be more pertinent info --- the fact that this person is a murderer or your low opinion?
    - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
      "Public Opinion" - Public opinion, or popular opinion, is the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people's views on matters affecting them (From Wikipedia) It has nothing to do with fact. It broadly represents peoples views, factual or otherwise.
iLoveOncall 2mo ago
I said it [1][2] when OpenAI was supposed to go public "next week" and I'll say it again today: neither Antropic nor OpenAI are going public in the coming few years. The moment they go public is the moment the music stops and everyone who still has their head in the sand realizes that they now can't deny there's no money to make in selling AI models, only money to lose. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211272 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358945
- dofm 2mo ago
  I rather think OpenAI will never get there. I think the AI industry desperately needs one of the two to get to IPO for its own sense of identity, though; the morale boost and the presumption of validation are crucial at this point. I think it’s possible that the remaining power of the delusion gets Anthropic to IPO.
  - 4fffaa 2mo ago
    Lol nobody's buying the BS. It is all about greater fool theory now. The substance OAI and Anthropic had is gone.
- danilocesar 2mo ago
  ++ I don't know if they will never go public,but their business is clearly not profitable as it is today. I'm a heavy user but the moment they stop subsidizing I will pick something else because I know how damn expensive it actually is (my usage is ~4k usd/month, but paying 200 in their max plan). I guess lot of people will do the same.
  - 4fffaa 2mo ago
    The funny thing is the govt would prob prefer all the resources were concentrated (e.g. across MSFT and Alphabet) rather than diversified across many firms in a head to head fight vs China. So therefore theres no argument to keep anthropic and OAI afloat if they cannot do so on their own.
danilocesar 2mo ago
Interesting how that whole conversation about "AGI tomorrow" completely disappeared and it's all about making money now. I'm a fan of claude and I have been using their top tier plans because it's so damn cheap comparing to my real usage. They will have to stop subsidizing this at some point, and people (include me) will flee. What they are gonna do? Interesting times we live in.
- VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago
  Sam Altman being like "AGI in <6 months/8 months/2023/2024/2025/2026>" is just sad to listen to now. They don't have it, and never will.
jiaosdjf 2mo ago
The risk is that we rise up and violently lynch the elites when they try to implement autonomous AI mass surveillance backed by an army of robots to quell the growing unrest of unemployed "useless eaters". It's a big risk and the only ways to mitigate it are either: a) build the dystopian system quickly and violently killing all dissenters on sight b) build a utopian system where robots build our houses, grow our food and serve us 24/7 Just a hunch they'll try option A.
- vrganj 2mo ago
  Socialism or Barbarism! - Rosa Luxemburg
- newsomix9xl 2mo ago
  How about scenario c) Mass surveillance is used to reduce crime in high crime areas usually ignored by police, and public safety is provided to all citizens, even the poor and working class? How about the army of robots helps to clean the streets, provide services to the poor and working classes, and provide high quality low cost housing, clean water, and livable cities?
  - sph 2mo ago
    I hope this is Larry Ellison's account otherwise the naivety on display in your comment is what I would expect from a preteen that hasn't ever watched the news. We live in a world of greed and corruption, but magically the powers that be truly find Jesus in their hearts and donate all their money to 'clean the streets, provide services to the poor and working classes, and provide high quality low cost housing, clean water, and livable cities'?
    - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
      I guess preteens live in Singapore and Japan, because their poor live in what by US standards is "crime free" cities, which are also, by US standards, clean and well serviced. Of course that's just an impression but my point is that your dystopian view is a morality tale with bad villains and some implied good guys. Life is not a comic book, there are good versions of the future, all government isn't evil, and sometimes things improve for everyone.
bigtex 2mo ago
I would think profitability would be the biggest risk factor

37 points by newsomix9xl 2mo ago

The bigger risk is going to be the fundamental inability to meet their buildout commitments. There’s not enough money in the world.

1123581321 2mo ago

This is a non-story; for those who haven’t read them, prospectuses include every potential risk under the sun. There will be risks that never make the news alongside the exciting backlash.

dofm 2mo ago
“Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising, will fight to prevent us establishing infrastructure, may pass laws to limit our activities in their states, and will extend that hatred to our major investors, potentially materially damaging their businesses” is not a common thing in an IPO prospectus, I imagine, for quite obvious reasons. But that is the gist of the situation is it not? If it’s an honest statement, it is going to say something like this. Which prospectus got close to anything like this? People hate SpaceX products less.
- montagg 2mo ago
  The non-story part is that they would include this risk even if it were 5 people.
  - sumeno 2mo ago
    I could easily find 5 people who hate SpaceX and yet that wasn’t mentioned as a risk I think you’re going to have to provide evidence that this is a commonly documented risk
    - jmalicki 2mo ago
      "Our AI products and X platform are subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations regarding privacy, cybersecurity, data use, data combination, data protection, content, AI, competition, youth protection, safety, consumer protection and notification, advertising, e-commerce, sanctions, export controls, and other matters. Many of these laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and we could be required to make changes to our products and business practices, and be exposed to monetary penalties, increased cost of operations, declines in user growth or engagement, or loss of customers, or other harm to our AI products and X platform. " "Certain of our AI products, including Grok, offer features or modes designed to generate more candid, direct, or less reserved or irreverent outputs, such as “Spicy” Imagine Mode and “Unhinged” Voice Mode. These features are intended to provide users with greater flexibility and control in how they use our tools. Because these modes may be more irreverent and harsher than our standard offerings, they present heightened risks, including reputational harm, the generation of potentially explicit content and misinformation or deceptive outputs, potential nonconsensual or exploitative imagery, intellectual property infringement, or content that could be viewed as exploitative, harmful, harassing, abusive, or discriminatory. The availability of such features may also increase the risk of regulatory scrutiny, enforcement actions, litigation, or claims of harm, as well as reputational damage, user or advertiser backlash, or limitations on our ability to distribute or monetize our products in certain jurisdictions or through certain partners." Or the wonderful: "We, Mr. Musk, and other companies Mr. Musk is affiliated with frequently receive an immense amount of media attention. The actions and statements of Mr. Musk and his affiliated ventures, whether or not directly relating to us, may draw significant public attention and scrutiny to us and could potentially have a positive or negative impact on our business, relationships with customers and regulators, or stock price."
      - 1123581321 2mo ago
        Thank you. Hopefully a good lesson for the GP to actually read prospectuses before making claims about them!
        deleted 2mo ago
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- jmalicki 2mo ago
  Uber and Airbnb both had similar risks in their S1s, for obvious reasons.
  - cavem0nkey 2mo ago
    And both have been damaging to society. And are getting fined and chased out of certain countries. Why would you throw investment in this unless you’re just leveraging the growth in the time it takes for regulatory issues to appear? Which is terribly unethical. Wall to wall bastards. I’d rather die poor than contribute to the further decline of society.
    - dofm 2mo ago
      They have but this reply was a fully fair answer to my point; perhaps there are more.
    - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
      Maybe those who seek and profit from the decline in our society also want to promote divisiveness? Maybe divisiveness itself, is part of the problem?
      - cavem0nkey 2mo ago
        Yep. We’re tribal apes. This is just a foot on the accelerator.
  - dofm 2mo ago
    I was thinking maybe Uber but I was not sure it could have been that bad. They would have had states pushing back but against a very popular product with users. But Airbnb, good point: they would have talked about the risks of states curtailing their businesses. It’s still a very unusual level of hatred, I would say.
    - jmalicki 2mo ago
      Uber called out that they were aggressively doing an end run around both taxi licensing AND minimum wage laws and facing significant pushback on both fronts, among many other risks.
- jryle70 2mo ago
  "Everyone hates us but they can't have enough of us. Our revenue can't stop rising" Anthropic's credit line is now $10B - [0], and the IPO is expected to beat or match SpaceX - [1] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-pre-ipo-credit-facility-120320361.html https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/anthropic-p... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic-expects-to-match-spacex-s-record-ipo-size-or-top-it https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic...
  - dofm 2mo ago
    Not what we are discussing.
  - nozzlegear 2mo ago
    This doesn't really refute what they said. The fact that they make a lot of money doesn't mean the public doesn't hate them or that they won't find themselves facing anti-AI backlash in the near or far future.
    - jryle70 2mo ago
      Huh? "Everyone hates us and the very fundamentals of what we are promising" First of all everyone? Based on what? Second of all "they hate our guts and the core of what we're doing (fundamentals), but they can't have enough of us". Are you sure the society (everyone) is that self loathe or HN is in a giant bubble? AI clearly causes disruption, anxiety, uncertainty, and will be negative for certain groups, just like anything with major impacts in the history. But hate by everyone? people who consider themselves smart and well informed should really be more objective and level headed.
  - owebmaster 2mo ago
    > "Everyone hates us but they can't have enough of us. Our revenue can't stop rising" Anthropic is far from profitable so using Claude makes them lose money. There's a fictional scenario where they make this money back with a huge profit but it's getting very hard to believe this gonna happen.
- bragr 2mo ago
  I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the prospectuses of many controversial companies spanning oil, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, adult entertainment, guns, gambling, defense, etc... Anything someone is trying hard to ban.
  - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
    Why is AI in the category of oil, cigs, and beer? Its software ....
    - bragr 2mo ago
      Social media and gaming companies probably have it too
    - dragontamer 2mo ago
      The electricity usage is off the charts. Every place that gets a data center has their electricity prices go up. Consumers are now fighting to stop data centers from coming into their hometowns. It's not like Data centers have lots of jobs that benefit a community anyway. It's basically a building that eats a local city's resources and gives barely anything back in return. At best, an AI data center is a year job for the local blue collar workers. A temporary benefit at best, while the price of electricity rises will negate any local benefits by a long shot. Plus water and noise, and other such issues.
      - dofm 2mo ago
        I think that was maybe a rhetorical question, but that indeed sums it up.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2mo ago
        Just read this interview[1] the other day that contends that the blue collar workers, or at least their union leaders, are thrilled about the data center boom. There are loads of these projects underway and they show no sign of stopping, so the fact that it's only work for a few years per building hardly matters. Plus, the pay is great because the projects have to fight each other for labor. It also says that localities competed for these projects because of the substantial tax revenue they'll bring in for the communities. Separately, while electrity usage is a valid concern with respect to pollution, data centers are not really driving electric costs up for residents, with (maybe?) a couple exceptions. Noise is likewise a non-issue by-and-large with (definitely existent) rare exceptions. And the water usage issue is totally invented; data centers use a tiny fraction of the water other industries that would otherwise occupy industrially-zoned land use. You didn't mention it, but the interview also contends that the "this will take our jobs" angle that gets passed around here as a reason isn't on anybody's mind. Instead, it seems that the AI companies used NDAs to prevent localities from efficiently pricing their deals. That's obviously sketchy on its own and worthy of attack, plus as a bonus it prevents governments from making statements to clarify that the populist narratives that surround the things and are, bluntly, false. [1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-centers https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
Betelbuddy 2mo ago
Well there is a story, and the story is we are going to have an Anthropic IPO? Believe it when I see it...
- mihaelm 2mo ago
  We've known Anthropic has filed for an IPO since early June.
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    Still no S-1, though. I really want to see it, have been on the edge of my seat all summer. I reckon they'll chicken out, though.
Betelbuddy 2mo ago
One risk they should include is: Our vision is working on a product and business model, that if we succeed, will make our business model and product obsolete.
- JacobAsmuth 2mo ago
  Not a risk.
- 1123581321 2mo ago
  I expect this will effectively be stated, that their success will depend on developing a succession of products and evolving the company in response to the market climate.

jqpabc123 2mo ago

negative sentiment towards AI and data centers will be listed as a risk factor The fact that the technology can "hallucinate" and is unreliable is not just a "sentiment" --- it is a well established fact. And it is more than a risk, it is virtually guaranteed to happen if you use it repeatedly. Calling it "sentiment" is like an "alternative fact".

uejfiweun 2mo ago
...what? I don't think they're talking about hallucinations here, they're talking about public opinion.
- jqpabc123 2mo ago
  Is it just an "opinion" if it is based on proven facts?
  - LPisGood 2mo ago
    Yes. Let’s say I saw a person kill someone. That’s a fact, but my perception of them would be low; that is an opinion. I think it’s really swell how the last 10 years have made it so the basic difference between fact and opinion is not totally obvious.
    - jqpabc123 2mo ago
      We're talking stated "risk" to the public. Using your example --- as far as "risk" to the public is concerned, which would be more pertinent info --- the fact that this person is a murderer or your low opinion?
  - bluefirebrand 2mo ago
    "Public Opinion" - Public opinion, or popular opinion, is the collective opinion on a specific topic or voting intention relevant to society. It is the people's views on matters affecting them (From Wikipedia) It has nothing to do with fact. It broadly represents peoples views, factual or otherwise.

iLoveOncall 2mo ago

I said it [1][2] when OpenAI was supposed to go public "next week" and I'll say it again today: neither Antropic nor OpenAI are going public in the coming few years. The moment they go public is the moment the music stops and everyone who still has their head in the sand realizes that they now can't deny there's no money to make in selling AI models, only money to lose. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211272 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48358945

dofm 2mo ago
I rather think OpenAI will never get there. I think the AI industry desperately needs one of the two to get to IPO for its own sense of identity, though; the morale boost and the presumption of validation are crucial at this point. I think it’s possible that the remaining power of the delusion gets Anthropic to IPO.
- 4fffaa 2mo ago
  Lol nobody's buying the BS. It is all about greater fool theory now. The substance OAI and Anthropic had is gone.
danilocesar 2mo ago
++ I don't know if they will never go public,but their business is clearly not profitable as it is today. I'm a heavy user but the moment they stop subsidizing I will pick something else because I know how damn expensive it actually is (my usage is ~4k usd/month, but paying 200 in their max plan). I guess lot of people will do the same.
- 4fffaa 2mo ago
  The funny thing is the govt would prob prefer all the resources were concentrated (e.g. across MSFT and Alphabet) rather than diversified across many firms in a head to head fight vs China. So therefore theres no argument to keep anthropic and OAI afloat if they cannot do so on their own.

danilocesar 2mo ago

Interesting how that whole conversation about "AGI tomorrow" completely disappeared and it's all about making money now. I'm a fan of claude and I have been using their top tier plans because it's so damn cheap comparing to my real usage. They will have to stop subsidizing this at some point, and people (include me) will flee. What they are gonna do? Interesting times we live in.

VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago
Sam Altman being like "AGI in <6 months/8 months/2023/2024/2025/2026>" is just sad to listen to now. They don't have it, and never will.

jiaosdjf 2mo ago

The risk is that we rise up and violently lynch the elites when they try to implement autonomous AI mass surveillance backed by an army of robots to quell the growing unrest of unemployed "useless eaters". It's a big risk and the only ways to mitigate it are either: a) build the dystopian system quickly and violently killing all dissenters on sight b) build a utopian system where robots build our houses, grow our food and serve us 24/7 Just a hunch they'll try option A.

vrganj 2mo ago
Socialism or Barbarism! - Rosa Luxemburg
newsomix9xl 2mo ago
How about scenario c) Mass surveillance is used to reduce crime in high crime areas usually ignored by police, and public safety is provided to all citizens, even the poor and working class? How about the army of robots helps to clean the streets, provide services to the poor and working classes, and provide high quality low cost housing, clean water, and livable cities?
- sph 2mo ago
  I hope this is Larry Ellison's account otherwise the naivety on display in your comment is what I would expect from a preteen that hasn't ever watched the news. We live in a world of greed and corruption, but magically the powers that be truly find Jesus in their hearts and donate all their money to 'clean the streets, provide services to the poor and working classes, and provide high quality low cost housing, clean water, and livable cities'?
  - newsomix9xl 2mo ago
    I guess preteens live in Singapore and Japan, because their poor live in what by US standards is "crime free" cities, which are also, by US standards, clean and well serviced. Of course that's just an impression but my point is that your dystopian view is a morality tale with bad villains and some implied good guys. Life is not a comic book, there are good versions of the future, all government isn't evil, and sometimes things improve for everyone.

bigtex 2mo ago

I would think profitability would be the biggest risk factor