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.
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-p...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic...
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.
Divisive technology leads to hate. Flock as well which is an us and them. Same mindset.
We are not as popular as we think we are. I know which side of the fence I want to be on.
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.
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.
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-cen...
Yes, it is software, something more powerful and thus potentially more harmful than any of the above physical products.
The world is considerably worse because of AI than the effects of beer and cigarettes. No, I'm not joking.
I think you’re going to have to provide evidence that this is a commonly documented risk
"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."
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.
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.
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.
What you get wrong is who the music stops for. It stops for us (retail). They dump their bags and consolidate into a more manageable business in the long run. S&P drops 10% and life moves on in a few years.
I think you’re right about OpenAI though. They got outplayed at every step and wont go public.
Turns out it was mainly just caused by one hedge fund (Citadel) targeting another hedge fund (Leopold). He got liquidated and Citadel picked up his portfolio for pennies. Market subsequently soared to even higher highs in the last few weeks and, poof, Anthropic is going public again.
That’s the narrative anyways - the big drop was just Leopold getting liquidated and not a larger market downturn.
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.
So therefore theres no argument to keep anthropic and OAI afloat if they cannot do so on their own.
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.
It is all about greater fool theory now. The substance OAI and Anthropic had is gone.
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".
Like ... basically everyone can pick their reason to hate.
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.
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?
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.