Remix.run Logo
▲ sobiolite an hour ago

New Constructs takes a similar position on all mega IPOs. Sometimes they're right, but sometimes they're wrong. For example, they insisted Uber's IPO valuation was too high due to unsustainable losses, hidden liabilities, etc. Initially they were proved right when the post-IPO stock price plummeted, but in the long term Uber has performed well, become very profitable, and now trades well above its IPO valuation.

I'm expecting a similar story to play out with Anthropic: The stock price will come down significantly after the IPO, resulting in lots of headlines about the AI bubble bursting. But in the long term it'll climb up again and investors who stick around will do very well.

▲seanhunter an hour ago | parent | next [-]

“Now trades well above the IPO valuation” does not mean something would have been a good investment at the IPO price given opportunity cost and the time value of money. Additionally, the current price could equally not represent good value.

▲solyin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah. Look at SpaceX. Dropped to $108 from an Ipo price of $135, but it's currently at $162 which is... fine?

▲somenameforme 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect SpaceX is going to be the opposite of what will happen with Anthropic. With SpaceX I think the overwhelming majority of people didn't initially understand what Starship is, how far along it is, or what it even means in terms of its impact on the pathway of getting humans to be a multiplanetary species. So it was greatly undervalued and zoomed upward.

With Anthropic I think a lot of people haven't really realized the trend line of cost of "AI" (both in literal $ terms, and compute costs for local operation) or what open weight systems will do to the market in the "long run", where long run in this case means the next year or two. I don't think any LLM company is going to come out a winner in the longrun, because the price for LLM output is going to approach $0 with no chance for a moat whatsoever.

▲swiftcoder 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> the overwhelming majority of people didn't initially understand what Starship is, how far along it is, or what it even means ... So it was greatly undervalued

I don't think anyone was undervaluing the "space" segment of SpaceX. It's the clear leader in launch frequency and cost-to-orbit among the new wave of space firms, and shows no sign of losing that position.

Where the IPO raised a bunch of red flags was SpaceX suddenly acquiring Elon's AI firm, which had a significantly more nebulous basis for its valuation...

▲ButlerianJihad 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> the pathway of getting humans to be a multiplanetary species

I am afraid that you're suffering from Flavor-Aid poisoning here. We need a reality check about "multiplanetary colonization".

I've been following human spaceflight since I was born. I've actually participated in robotic spaceflight. And I'm here to say that it is robots who are destined to be a multiplanetary species. The robots have already successfully escaped our solar system and extensively explored the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Many unscientific people believe that it's harder to colonize the Moon or Mars because they are farther than Africa or Rio de Janeiro is from Rome. But mere distance is not really your biggest obstacle.

I've also been following the ISS since its inception, and they have empirically disproven the feasibility of colonizing planets. If we succeed in establishing a crewed Moon base, it will be an ultra-Herculean effort, and it's on the edge of feasibility.

But Mars? Venus? Asteroids? Europa? You really think humans are going to live there?

The reasons that ISS has disproven this are manifold, but I'll point out two key points:

Their supply-chain is only about 8-48 hours, and they can stash large amounts of provisions up there. Their escape route is also only 8 hours and they're back on Earth in a jiffy. None of this is true for any body outside of Earth orbit. The Apollo missions arrived on the Moon and returned safely, by burning, jettisoning, consuming, and abandoning nearly everything they started with!!

A 15th-century expedition to Africa or Brazil means that you can fish in the ocean, breathe the air, drink rainwater along the way. An expedition to the Moon puts you in an airtight bubble with no stops, no rescue, no resupply, and most importantly, no breathing on the way, nor once you get there.

The ISS has also demonstrated the severe toll on the human physique in microgravity conditions. Watch astronauts who land or splash down. They are carted off in gurneys. They are literally unable to walk unassisted. NASA restricts returnees from driving or even jogging. The astronauts describe having to "relearn gravity" activities like brushing your teeth and showering. Any astronaut arriving on Mars would be as helpless as a toddler! Do you want to colonize Mars with toddlers? Because all the treadmills and workouts along the way won't make them fit for purpose on arrival.

So between here and Mars it's minimum six months, no escape, no rescues, no takey-backsies. We could send humans to Mars if we didn't want them to survive or return. I mean, no problem. There's no air to breathe on Mars; no water to drink; no fuel to burn; no fish to fish nor deer to hunt; no steel to build a shelter. You pack it all into the spacecraft, newbie?

But NASA and the rest of the world has amply demonstrated just how capable robots are where humans fail. Robots are going to inherit the solar system. Robots are in 2026, the de facto interplanetary species, sine qua non. My heart is warmed by these human achievements. I, for one, am happy to live and die on Earth. I think that every American should be grateful for Earth, and not permit our oligarchs to cheat and lie to us with fairytales of escaping our Earth.

▲gizajob 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Everything you’re saying is true but it’s nevertheless going to happen anyway.

▲jiggawatts 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I fully agree with your points: the hard, unyielding reality which most Trekkie fanatics refuse to acknowledge, except for one: "severe toll on the human physique in microgravity conditions."

That's easily fixed!

Spinning a space station for gravity is straightforward, it's just that the ISS wasn't designed for it, and NASA didn't have the budget to build a second, bigger space station with "extra engineering challenges" on top.

It's definitely practical though, it's just a matter of launching enough mass to orbit.

Like you said, Starship is going to change a lot of things, starting with space station design.

▲cmiles8 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

While I think SpaceX is still horribly over-valued they at least have a diverse line of businesses that are very hard to copy.

Anthropic is a one trick pony and the world is discovering lots of other cheap ponies that do the same trick.