It is really hard to tell with products though. Sometimes the core idea is right, but you haven't yet refined it to match what your audience wants (ie, sometimes you're building for one person that you're not marketing to). Also sometimes it takes a long time to win over your target audience, even if your product is "perfect". In short, sometimes you're doing things correctly, but just gave up too early.
Of course, it is also possible to stay with a bad idea forever. Personally I don't think it's possible to know which scenario you're in (good idea but gave up too early, vs bad idea) until you either succeed or die.
It's the last bump before I liquidate all my stocks. I predict that the crash will come at the end or the beginning of the next president which is likely democrat.
Not that it's democrat's fault but democrat is more disciplined
I have some thoughts on that. It’s possible that the current administration’s lack of oversight has artificially propped up the stock market. If the next president decides to return to a more traditional rules based structure, the market will probably react very poorly. US debt is also getting more expensive and interest is ballooning.
Making the country less desirable to the most skilled immigrants and eroding the capabilities of the strongest research universities will also mean there is probably hell to pay in the medium term.
The swing of the market based on the president's crazy tweets is just insane. This cannot go on for much longer. I will be parking my money at a safer place
> The swing of the market based on the president's crazy tweets is just insane.
A quick glance at charts shows that VIX is not at all out of line with historical patterns, and asking ChatGPT to crunch some numbers confirms that. The "liberation day" spike was not nearly as bad as in 2008 or for COVID, and in fact not much more than events in 2010 and 2011 that people don't even have names for.
Time in the market beats timing the market, bears have predicted (large number) out of the last (smaller number) recessions, etc. None of this is novel. "Predicting" a stock crash due to political reasons is effectively just a fancy restatement of anti-those-politics views; and it isn't substantive, especially when the prediction comes with a years-long window.
> Otherwise there is so, so much evidence that it is flat wrong.
Pardon; are you asserting there is mountains of evidence that the bears have not, in fact, claimed impending recession far more often than actual recession occurred? Or that market timers are generally successful (are you not familiar with e.g. https://longbets.org/362/ )?
Yeah, meanwhile all the wealthy people actively manage their port with an insane amount of efforts. They would compensate hedge fund manager with insane amount of money.
Then, they turn around and tell average people to forget about the investment. Just park your money in the index fund over the long run. I mean, if you are either stupid or don't have time, then yeah please only do index fund.
It took me quite a while to figure out that the two of you are using "port" as short for "portfolio". Never heard that before.
"The wealthy people" got wealthy in a whole bunch of different ways that are not investment; and having gained wealth, they invest it for many different reasons aside from maximizing log-mean expectation (or probability of sustaining a given level of cash flow, or other objective metrics that only consider the investment itself). Hiring a well-compensated "hedge" fund manager (many of these funds are not at all about hedging) is barely any more "effort" than buying and holding SPY, as the work is being entirely delegated. Many strategies are dependent on that level of wealth (or designed to address problems that only apply to that level of wealth) for tax-related reasons.
There is plenty of evidence that most lay people who try to time the market lose out on average, and I see no reason to expect you to be an exception. Active trading loses out on average to indexes by mathematical necessity, as both grow on average proportional to the total value of equities, but active traders (and holders of actively managed funds) are exposed to higher fees. The only winners there are the market makers.
I think it may happen before then. That's why I'm thinking of liquidating it soon-ish. Trump is doing too much crazy things. He cannot prop up the market for that long.
I plan to put most of the money in US t-bill (4 week) to earn 3% for now.
Yes! I mean everyone is speaking about this in a boxed manner.
For all we know there are might be several reasons for that ban e.g.
1) There is an actual security threat and its just simple as that.
2) Someone wants Anthropic to be valued way higher and the companies that have invested in Anthropic already... This ban only validates this product and will move the market in higher valuation of Anthropic due to their model being "so good gov had to ban"
3) Someone doesn't like Anthropic and just wants to shut down its current edge (highly unlikely, if there was no IPO filing in place it could be possible but now the valuation just goes up, same as the 2 As that have invested in them)
4) Someone freaked out that we'll be left out of jobs soon so wants to slow down progress, tbh using fable so far I can tell that a lot of jobs can be made redundant cause of that...
For me the most likely for now is 2, then 1 and then maybe 4.
On June 22 Chatgpt will most likely come out with their new model too, which as I understand will be an answer to mythos. Lets see if the US gov goes the same route.
It's not that complicated. Probably what happened is just that a former Fox News host read part of a security report that he did not understand and overreacted.
I do not understand why it being mandated that the vast majority of the people in the world will not allowed to use -- or pay for -- your product (and that the ones that can will have to jump through excessive hoops) could ever make your valuation go up; can you walk me through that one?
Even if this is just temporary, your #3 is more in direct conflict with #2 than you seem to be willing to admit: if you were to own stock in a company that you know has a powerful product and a market lead, but they have been required to take a time out in the market for a year, that should be devastating for their valuation.
Because nowadays the stockmarket is build upon hype, this is why we are having the market caps and valuations we are having that are in any way shape or form reflecting anything that is real.
For the Gov to come out and block a model for national security, its gonna swing the market into thinking "oh anthropic really has the next generation of LLMs out there, its that good Gov banned it, this company is going to the moon".
The part of banning non US nationals, I believe is a legality, as in they have to trust US citizens to do right by their country. I don't think in court a whole ban on a product for security reasons would stand. (The judge would ask for the gov to explain why all US nationals are a security threat to their country)
Nevertheless, again I am standing behind number 2 personally as the main reason for such a thing, market manipulation is not new and its currently at its all time high. Also anthropic is part of this manipulation so far, with every other AI company out there.
Again I am just presenting my POV, it could as well just be number 1... A gov became competent enough to find security threads before they happen :)
I get what you mean but you are very wrong about the stock market and how people react to export bans. Everytime US had restricted control for Nvidia chips in the news over the last few years, the stock price went down not up.
It might be a good marketing trick but it is not a good thing in the stock market given historical trends.
Your view highly screams you only have a superficial understanding of financial markets and you shouldn't extraploate that to "this is how market works because its all hype and everything is vapor"
No, its not apples and oranges. How/why does it boost their IPO directly? Elaborate on this please instead of stating it as an universal fact (because it isn't).
I feel you are just talking a hypothetical without having any basis. You think it'll have an impact on IPO directly and that it will be a positive one. But you have no proof or historical precidence for the same. Meanwhile we have historical proof that markets reacts negatively when a company is blocked by the government on selling their top products freely. And that is most likely going to happen here as well.
Public perception might be changed by these "ohhh its so scary guys" marketing but these don't translate to actual market perception when it comes to actual facts and numbers on the financials.
You can't justify trillions of market cap just serving the US market, and they've just kneecapped their ability to compete anywhere else, it would be delusional to invest on something like this thinking it's going to be a free market, you'd just be indirectly funding the US government ability to use AI against others, especially if you are a non-US citizen (or a subgroup of US citizens they don't like). The near-term world-ending is just pure marketing, they haven't shown anything nearly as impressive as they've been promising, and the software they've produced so far with near infinite access to agents has been very impressively bad.
It could be the case that we’ve reached the last generation of frontier models that can be accessed by the general public. That eliminates a risk that Anthropic could be leapfrogged by a competitor.
Now it’s a competition between products on the near frontier. Anthropic has executed well on products so far. They blew up thanks to Claude Code, not Opus by itself.
5) Someone freaked out China might use the model to advance its own tech. It's always China with this administration. The guy has an obsession with China since he had to hire feng shui consultants to make his tower appealing¹ for Chinese customers.
Also, might be a way to further screw with Anthrophic because they refused to remove their guardrails Pentagon, getting the opposite result of what was intended.
If (1) then somebody in the administration messed up badly. Glasswing has been a thing since April, and it's common knowledge that there would be some fuzzy edges around whatever restrictions a model has in place. There's no reason to let it launch and then pull it back.
(2) This "hype" meme is overrated. Enterprises (ones without a horse in the race, at least) will choose the model their best engineers ask for, or their competitors will lap them. I have been finding Codex more useful (even than Fable) but for a lot of tasks it seems that Claude Code is faster. This is one customer base where the general consensus here on HN is more influential than anything the Trump administration could do or anything Anthropic could say.
(3) "US government seems out to kill you" does not necessarily make valuation go up, and we've already seen this administration in an avoidable spat with Anthropic.
(4) This seems way less likely than a mix of (1) and (3) to me. The arguments for banning a useful technology to save jobs haven't really made sense since cars or indoor plumbing and don't get taken too seriously in either party at senior levels. That could change but it will take a lot for it to change.
Eh, chatGpt coming out with a new garbage model. Great.
Fable had some really good cross project awareness. My only complaint is it backported a feature to my test application and then they killed it before I could finish debugging it. The new model behavior in the replacement application was 100% superior. I just didn't know it was going to start porting fixes so readily between projects. Awareness in the new model is amazing and the feedback I've had from other developers is the same. It feels like ultrathink with double the agents of xhigh effort. The real issue is they shipped it with incomplete guardrails and someone likely found an exploit.
The Trump administration has exactly one motive, and that is accumulation of wealth. There is literally no other reason they would do anything. Even if there were legitimate economic or security concerns, those aren't motivating to the Trump administration.
This is about grift, somehow, full stop.
I neither like nor support Anthropic, but there's just no sense in pretending the Trump administration is anything other than a kleptocracy or interpreting their actions under any other lens.
It's only rewarding hype if the ban gets dropped. If "foreign Anthropic employees that live in the US can't use Fable/Mythos" stays it harms them, if they don't drop the ban and Fable/Mythos stay limited to "every single person who uses the model must individually provide their ID to prove American-ness" it harms them.
It is already a rewarding hype. They are the first company to build a model so advanced that the US government has to ban it.
Google and OpenAI will eventually catch up and be banned as well. Therefore, this ban isn't really a huge concern for Anthropic since their competitors will be banned eventually.
All this does is proving to investors that Anthropic is indeed ahead of its competitors.
>OpenAI will eventually catch up and be banned as well.
" We have reviewed a report that we believe is the basis of the government's directive and validated that the level of capability displayed there is widely available from other models (including OpenAI’s GPT-5.5)"
The administration just doesn't like anthropic. OpenAI is in bed with the trump Administration.
Anthropic refused to allow the US Government to conduct mass surveillance, which made the US Government mad. OpenAI was fine with it as long as it was 'legal' mass surveillance. OpenAI is not going to get banned, even if their next model is both better and more dangerous than Mythos.
No, Anthropic refused to allow the US Government to conduct mass surveillance on US Citizens, they where fine with 'legal' mass surveillance of other countries.
What they know right now is that the model is so advanced the US government has to ban it, and the model comes out of Anthropic. Not Google. Not OpenAI.
Not in the same way, no, because they have not been targeted, while they should have if the same rules applied, according to Anthropic's depiction of the situation.
This is potential tyranny aimed at Anthropic, specifically.
Europe doesn't seem to care so much about erratic and hostile governments when it cozied up to Russian gas for decades, something it still continues to do just hiding behind third party countries.
It's a clear statement that European morals are purely performative
Just like how the EU is hostile towards US companies, but very light to the touch when it comes to corruption with HSBC, FIFA or VW. With such hostile and erratic allies, who needs enemies?
Let's not even get into Orban. You can never trust the EU again since who knows if they're capable of electing someone like that in the future? Trust is broken forever
Great, great point. That's why people who say NATO can't be relied on anymore aren't making sense - NATO never elected Trump, so his involvement or opinion on it doesn't matter.
Imagine a private company invents a piece of technology soooo good that the US government has to issue a ban.
Apple's G4 was banned for export. Although it was not a direct order from US government. They fell into an outdated bracket of computing power exports limits. They sure did use it for advertising it.
> Anthropic got the most rewarding hype ever in the history of mankind.
What? Anthropic is not a TikTok sensation. It's a business tool. Businesses need to know their tools work reliably.
When you are situated in a banana republic and the chief banana is out to get you (and demonstrates that they can and will on a whim) that is not great hype but a potential death sentence for you as a service provider.
You are one degree away from becoming forever branded as unusable. (Theoretically until people trust that a sane administration is in control again, but that might as well be forever on current AI timelines, given how much cashflow you need just to keep going)
It pretty much is. Claude is more of a meme than a tool. It's been second best (and more expensive option) for most of the time but people somehow keep talking about it. I'm getting strong Apple vibes from this one.
Most valuably, they have a plausible excuse for hitting a financial brick wall before failing to deliver on years of over-promising on real-world business utility.
Anthropic got out a slightly better model (which is what two companies were doing for more than a year), but at the cost of not being able to provide it within subscription. It build out an inordinate hype around this model. And in the end it was saved by this hype because it doesn't have to admit now that it's never gonna be able to provide this model in volume because gov forbade them from providing it.
Expensive marketing stunt if users demand refunds from their credit card company for those annual subscriptions on the basis of "service not delivered".
Paying for 365 days of service but getting 364 would normally get you a full refund, not just a 1 day credit according to visa/MasterCard rules.
The most surprising thing is that the whole world somehow has built dependency on Hormuz which has been known for decades that it is controlled by Iran, an adversarial actor to the west.
Nobody ever thinks of, you know, building redundancy for Hormuz?
(Really neat website, I think it was shared on HN a few months ago?)
There is a lot of other proposed routes but it’s actually pretty hard to create them in that region, lots of actors with their own interests and not the best history of collaboration. And Iran would definitely be against it given it reduces their influence
Most ordinary Iranians, sure; certainly not the Islamic regime. It was their decision to train, fund and supply weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ and the Houthis since the early 80s.
In the past 60 years the Iranian regime has only closed the straight in retaliation to a second massive suckerpunch against it.
I'd say they are acting in a far more restrained and reasonable manner than the belligerents in the 'west'. And most rational people are in agreement with me on this.
Imagine what the US would have done in response to a massive surprise bombing attack that killed the president, most of the senior cabinet and military, struck bases across the country, sunk most of it's navy, and blew out a few elementary schools and apartment blocks and civilian infrastructure targets for good measure.
The last time something that was a tiny fraction of that happened, it started two wars and killed half a million people (most of them from a country that had nothing to do with the attack).
Iran's response was downright restrained.
Here's a radical idea. Don't start wars with countries if you don't like the consequences.
> In the past 60 years the Iranian regime has only closed the straight in retaliation to a second massive suckerpunch against it.
Well yes, because its a desperation move that hurts them just as much as it hurts everyone else. Its worth it to them as a last resort but at any earlier point it would have been a strategicly stupid thing to do.
> The last time something that was a tiny fraction of that happened, it started two wars and killed half a million people (most of them from a country that had nothing to do with the attack).
Arguably this whole thing happened because Israel thinks Iran is at fault for the oct 7 attacks and now views them as an unacceptable threat (note: even if you dont agree, it really doesn't matter so long as the people who are at war think this). Which was kind of like your hypothetical, so it should resonate with what you are saying.
> Iran's response was downright restrained.
Largely because they lack the ability to do much else that would be a strategic benefit to their situation.
> Here's a radical idea. Don't start wars with countries if you don't like the consequences.
Indeed, but that bites both ways. Violence begets violence and war begets war. The present situation was forged in the decisions of the past including many of Iran's.
US/Israel may have opened the current front, but the Iranian regime has been waging proxy warfare since the early 80s. They also attempted to assassinate our president. It's misleading to paint US/Israel as the aggressors for occasionally responding to years of indirect or unsuccessful attacks.
To look at it another way: if US/Israel hadn't responded directly, but instead paid Erdogan a large bribe to strike a list of coordinates in Iran, while also supplying the missiles and the training, would that get around your concern? Probably not.
Ever thought why? For you they are terrorists, and for them they are resistance groups to prevent what Israel did in the last 2 years..occupy their lands an murder their people.
Israel has never occupied Yemen. They are like a thousand miles away but the slogan on the Houthi banner contains “death to Israel” and “curse the Jews”.
They’re not even pretending not to be antisemitic.
Then, I have a few products that have maybe 10 users.
Too niche is an issue.
reply