Update: I edited my comment to focus on the mindset of making predictions (including recognizing the uncertainty and being comprehensive about possible scenarios)

I made a new top-level comment mentioning the 2006 YouTube acquisition only to show that many people were shocked, but -surprise- markets are usually better predictors than individual hunches.

▲

fidotron 3 days ago | parent [-]

This isn't a market in that sense though - it's very much one sided what Anthropic tells us and they are privately traded.

It is very far from a situation where the price discovery mechanism is allowed to work.

▲

xpe 2 days ago | parent [-]

Here are some ways that it’s not very far from a market mechanism:

1. How much an organization is willing to invest in X competes against other market opportunities.

2. The effective price per share (as part of the latest round of financing) is an implicit negotiation.

It is a matter of degree, sure, but my point still stands: there is a lot of collective information going into this valuation. So an individual should be intellectually humble relative to that. How many people have more information than even an imperfect market-derived quantity?

▲

fidotron 2 days ago | parent [-]

> there is a lot of collective information going into this valuation

No, there isn't. For example, I would like to legally bet against Anthropic existing as a going concern in five years. Where can I do this? All the information against them is discarded and hidden.

	▲	xpe 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You misunderstand what I mean by “collective”. If you are charitable, the meaning is easy to see. “Collective” as I used it does not mean that everything or every person gets factored in.
	▲	xpe 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Rather than getting sidetracked, I will repeat the central point and question to you again: > How many people have more information than even an imperfect market-derived quantity? I’ll restate the point because I don’t think you’re understanding what I mean. Do you think this funding round was irrational from the point of view of the investors? If so, how can you make such a claim? Do you have information they do not? It is possible you have some bit of knowledge they don’t, but on balance it is unlikely that you are operating from a position of having more relevant information.