| ▲ | rconti 4 hours ago |
| So they're not just racing to gain dominance in AI, they're also racing to IPO before the music stops? IPOing and getting a bunch of cash, even if your stock subsequently suffers in the crash, is a lot better than being unable to get that capital infusion before the house of cards collapses. |
|
| ▲ | aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think OpenAI or Anthropic are predicting that the AI market is going to collapse. In fact, I think both are bullish that the public still isn't pricing in exponential growth. I think what is happening is that OpenAI is racing to IPO before Anthropic because their growth isn't as impressive. If you are the weaker company, you should IPO first to lock up the cash. |
| |
| ▲ | bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can’t imagine them actually being bullish about exponential growth, when both seem instead to be stagnating. I’m more inclined to believe they’re just maintaining a level of hype in public because that’s what you do. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > when both seem instead to be stagnating What's the evidence for Anthropic stagnating? | | |
| ▲ | bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They’ve claimed a big revenue run rate for this quarter. But it’s non-GAAP, so you kind of have to assume shenanigans. Earlier this year they were telling a court their revenue was like 1/4 of what they had told the public. I consider the number they came up with when they had to worry about committing perjury to be more trustworthy (because I’m a pill), so that would also indicate shenanigans. My guess is they are inflating that revenue run rate figure by booking token pre-payments from enterprise contracts now instead of spreading it over time as GAAP would mandate. And at the same time their big enterprise clients are talking about scaling back their usage. So we’ve got a combination of signs that they’ve been inflating their revenue growth, and signs that their customers are losing their appetite for contributing to that revenue growth. I suppose it’s not a slam dunk, but it feels to me like as strong an indicator as one could hope for a private blitzscaler startup like this. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh, to be clear, I'm not saying there is evidence they're all a-okay. I just hadn't seen any evidence that they were stalling out. (I have for OpenAI.) |
| |
| ▲ | Eufrat 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The same evidence that they are growing. Tea leaves. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What are they offering the public (not me and you writing code in our free time)? | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They are offering the public an opportunity to become shareholders and they are giving their investors and employees liquidity. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean as a long-term product, not as a offer to join a hype cycle. | | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Automating a large portion of existing white collar work, accelerating scientific discoveries, brain for robotics, etc. These are compelling offers. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, how does that benefit the public? | | |
| ▲ | ArmadilloGang 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Short term, nations with a high rate of white collar employment and fewer social services will suffer greatly. Eventually, and likely in the lifetimes of most people living today, we would have to see something akin to universal basic income (UBI) that covers the necessities in order to stave off massive civil unrest. If the white collar labor of human beings can’t compete with the output of AI, we either all become blue collar workers or we re-invent the concepts of work and play. I’m not aware of any existing or proposed economy framework that adequately accounts for the automation that is nearly here at scale. We are not just automating away jobs - we are automating away the value that human beings have within a productive community. Before the mass starvation will come the mass suicide. Our culture teaches us that a feeling of self worth is derived from our perceived productivity. If we cannot feel successful, we may lose our wills to live. | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't know. Some will benefit, some will not. The topic here is the IPOs. | |
| ▲ | justapassenger 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What have the Romans ever do for us?! | | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2ff 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "I think both are bullish that the public still isn't pricing in exponential growth." So youre saying they will both become the economy whilst Google, Apple et al let them? Man the idiotic statements on here are insane. Why do you fools pretend to know a subject well enough to spout such nonsense? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > youre saying they will both become the economy They said exponential and you read unlimited. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bickfordb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The only reason I can think of for the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX is a pump and dump |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX To be clear, S&P hasn't announced a decision on this yet. | | |
| ▲ | jackyinger 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps they’re afraid announcement would trigger divestment | | |
| ▲ | LostMyLogin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I imagine the vast majority don’t care. All they care about is trying to hit their 401k or Roth IRA contributions for the month. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Perhaps they’re afraid announcement would trigger divestment S&P don't get a choice around whether they announce their methodology or not. That said, the rule change at the NASDAQ 100 doesn't seem to have impacted pricing or allocation. I can't imagine that many people are that concerned about this. (I posted the public-comment request from S&P to HN [1]. The response was crickets.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324 |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Better for whom? |
| |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The company. Worse for the investors. It's a classic bagholder play, but it can give the companies a comfortable runway post IPO. Typically, you IPO when your private funding is drying up and/or some of your early lenders want to cash out. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The company. Worse for the investors It's worse for the new investors. (If it crashes.) It's great for the old investors. They got an opportunity to sell if they wanted. If they didn't, they still own their shares, except in a company that has that IPO cash sitting in its account. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, correct. Although, even for some company folks, if it crashes, they get burned since they typically have blackouts post IPO. Of course, some special souls are excluded from blackouts lol. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > if it crashes, they get burned since they typically have blackouts post IPO In the alternate timeline they would have held shares in a private company. They're still not really getting burned other than getting a tax bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dangus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not sure how long we can continue being negative about these AI companies. This idea that there will be a crash has often burned the bears in a way that has become an Internet meme. In reality, corporations as a whole are seeing record profits continuing through 2026. Whether or not the average person is doing well is pretty irrelevant to the stock market: if companies are increasingly profitable, stocks go up. Everything I hear about Anthropic points to a company that is actually closer to profitability and possibly already profitable, unlike many of its other peers. We don't really look at YouTube as a failure and that product was unprofitable for many years. Nobody thinks the Uber bubble is going to burst even though it has never made back its investment money. I think OpenAI is undisciplined and poorly run hence the insane burning of cash. Sam Altman is a terrible CEO and a conman. Anthropic is run by legit people. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta face essentially no negative consequence for burning cash. They have no urgent need to be efficient about their AI investments, even if they could be. SpaceX is of course not profitable and has a lot of baggage but they still have a major asset, which is that Starlink prints utility company levels of money and is expanding both customer base and profit margins rapidly. Are they overvalued? Yeah, of course. |
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| People keep predicting "house of cards" and keep being wrong. AI bubble was supposed to burst as far back as 2023. When was the last time since 2009 there was a $500+ billion tech valuation that lost 90% or more? After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples. |
| |
| ▲ | bunderbunder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The old saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future. | |
| ▲ | lmm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples. Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory. | |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The headwinds are way worse now, though. Oil is choked, war is brewing, and corruption is at an all-time high. | |
| ▲ | hungryhobbit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't. | | |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is one of those arguments that is so vacuous you can apply it to anything and always be right. > "There's no way you'll hurt yourself walking to the living room" > "Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't." | |
| ▲ | olalonde 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And people are right most of the time. For every actual bubble, there are easily a dozen "bubbles" that aren't in fact bubbles. | |
| ▲ | aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nasdaq is 5.4x higher now than peak dotcom. So just buy the dip if it actually crashes. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't History is also replete with people constantly predicting collapses that don't come. Timing the market is very hard with numbers, it's total nonsense if one is just going off vibes. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most bank runs tend to be driven by vibes, not numbers though. The good news is that these folks seem to be in possession of a vibe-rator. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > bank runs Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI are not banks. (Also, we had the largest bank runs in American history three years ago. The ordinary American barely noticed.) | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're not profitable either, so the money has to come from somewhere, no? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the money has to come from somewhere, no? Yes. Equity investors. The ones who buy hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of American stocks a quarter. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And these equity-investors, do they use their own money to buy the (presumably non-voting) stocks? Cause if that's the case, I see no reason for a government bailout should things go south. Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment. But if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > these equity-investors, do they use their own money to buy the (presumably non-voting) stocks? Yes [1]. > Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment ...pensions also invest in the stock market. > if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run You're confusing deeply unrelated concepts. Whether or not someone who loses money is politically sympathetic has nothing to do with whether they're at risk of a bank run. [1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22... | | |
| ▲ | za_creature an hour ago | parent [-] | | I made no mention of anyone being politically sympathetic or otherwise. A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout. The argument for government bailouts used to be that "grandpa would lose his pension", I merely stated the terms that would make this non-applicable. If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone]. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout What does this mean? Who do you think benefits from a bailout? > If pensions invest in the stock market Pensions are private investors. And pensions invest in all kinds of things. Plenty are already shareholders in these companies. > last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so This is a non sequitur. Nobody disputed this. And 401(k)s are not pensions. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If much of the money comes from passive funds, presumably the other stocks in those funds will need to be sold? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fnordpiglet 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If note the dotcom boom lasted from about 1995 until 2000. Housing bubble longer. Theres no time table on when the bubble bursts, and the web didn’t die and neither did housing when the burst happened. It is just a reset and consolidation of overtly excessive speculation. It’s not like the bust leads to an end of civilization. | |
| ▲ | _fizz_buzz_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did. |
|
