DennisP

Plus a good business can often get better returns by reinvesting profits than its investors are likely to get on their own. Investors always have the option to sell shares when they think that's not the case.

People should really look at cash flow statements instead of just earnings. Anthropic published one and their cash flow was positive for the first half of this year.

That doesn't mean all the circular financing won't be a problem, but people keep drawing the wrong conclusions from the negative earnings, which are relevant to investors but not so much to the viability of the business.

I saw a comment saying it is, and having a coding agent able to modify a running environment is a game changer, but I haven't wrapped my head around that yet.

Bad for hyperscalers. Good for Nvidia.

Help with health issues is turning into a big one.

My mother-in-law has a complicated set of medical conditions and sees half a dozen different doctors. Fable with max thinking came up with a bunch of interactions between drugs and conditions that her doctors hadn't considered. We've run its recommendations by one doctor so far and he agreed with everything.

My brother has one friend who used a frontier AI to diagnose his wife's uncommon cancer, and insisted on a test for that. It was correct and she's fine now since they caught it early. Brother has another friend whose wife had back pain after surgery; medical team didn't find what was wrong, he uploaded the scan, and the AI said "oh they left in a staple," which turned out to be correct.

I've started using it to work on a cookbook for the medically prescribed diet I'm on.

I would classify training and research more as capital investment than overhead.

Contrary to popular belief, plenty of long-term profitable businesses have no moat. It's just that if you use Warren Buffett's investment strategy and want to buy stocks to keep for decades, companies with moats are the surest way of doing that.

That seems an uncharitable assumption. I for one strongly object both to today's abuses and the treatment of Snowden, and GP may well feel the same.

This is a superhero origin story if I've ever seen one.

Yes, and since so many apparently edible things are quite harmful, it seems reasonable to be cautious about new ones.

They might not consider the cold gas thrusters to be particular trade secrets. They're very simple devices.