FloorEgg

Well sure..., but what might be less obvious is that a can of beans, a tank of gas, a wig and a chair can all inflate at 2% a year while stocks and land inflate much faster.

The way we measure inflation is focused on consumption goods that everyone depends on. It doesn't take into account the stock market.

In other words we could stay around 3% in measured inflation but see ~30% annual equity inflation...

So my point is that the most valuable companies in 20 years could be worth hundreds of trillions while the cost of a can of beans is like $5, not $200.

Zimbabwe type inflation happens when the economy doesn't get more efficient at producing stuff as fast as the government prints money. If the economy increases efficiency very quickly and the government prints money to peg at 2% inflation, the products we consume only increase a little bit while scarce assets increase a lot.

This is why in the time I took a can of beans to increase in price 3x a house increased 20x.

Companies IPO much later now because the laws changed. They used to be forced to IPO much earlier because employees shareholders pushed them over the threshold for # or private shareholders.

So you're absolutely correct about the comparison.

That said, I bet whatever happens over the next 20 years goes beyond what any of us can imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if the winners of this paradigm are worth hundreds of trillions. Sounds ridiculous until you look backwards and valuation a and consider this is an exponential curve and time is compressing.

As a power user of Google search for decades, I find myself using it less and less (maybe now 5% of my historical peak usage). There are several reasons, but the main one is because they have gradually traded search quality for ad revenue with the direct consequence being wasting my time.

If I type in the name of a company so that I can navigate to their website, and I have to scroll past my whole viewport of other companies bidding to be placed above where I'm trying to go, I learn it's faster for me to just type the website address into the bar instead of going via Google.

They designed a UX that made my life easier and caused me to form a habit, and then broke that UX for money causing me to form a new habit.

It's just one example of dozens, but the consequence is that I see 95% fewer Google ads than I used to. My guess I am on the leading edge (along with many others on this forum) of a wave of change of user behavior that spells pessimism for Google search revenue.

What terrifies me is the thought that knowing the answer everyone sees is wrong and everyone being incapable of thinking critically about it. Maybe this is a timeless problem, but I fear it getting worse.

Disrupt trust and you disrupt the nash equilibrium.

I remember that morning when almost every channel was replaying it. I remember watching live when the second plane hit.

I didn't understand the long term implications then, but I remember hearing things other people said who clearly did understand. It wasn't about the towers or the death, it was about the attack on trust and the long term impact that would have on individual people's choices that made up the broader culture.

Like a stick in the spokes of a continent sized bike that takes decades to flip over.

Because anyone can apply any label to anything.

Values drive behavior. Who owns / runs futurism and what are their values?

Journalism / media as activity needs to be sustainable and unfortunately in our current world it's seems very difficult to sustainably remain high integrity. Sometimes it may be greed, but most of the time I think it's survival.

In this case AI is part of what is threatening journalist survivability, so it kind of makes sense.

No, that's not all I need to know. I need to know much much more than that, because my needs follow from my wants and I want to understand the full truth.

I can think for myself, and I don't need you, or Reuters, to think for me, thank you.

Wait until they actually IPO... And ignore the noise until then?

I've seen plenty of evidence and I could take a bunch of time to dig it up and present it to you... Or you could just take note to think critically about the content whenever someone else is paying for you to read an article instead of you paying for it yourself. (Even if it's for a source which historically had a good reputation)

Maybe I'm being chastised and down voted by real people who take offense to encouraging study and critical thinking about information that impacts financial decisions on a website with community guidelines that encourages intellectual curiosity, or maybe I'm being attacked by LLM bots in a time when it's never been cheaper or easier to do so.

Youre riding a fine line between being curious and sealioning. If you're actually curious, try asking another way.

Lots of people really want to convince the public there is a bubble.

Hmmm...

My advice: if you actually want to know the truth of what is going on, get a general understanding of finance and read the actual financial statements/filings and their disclaimers. It's very easy to write articles like this that cherry pick certain numbers out of context to support a specific narrative. Reuters is in the process of liquidating their reputation in the same way that forbes and business insider and many others publications have.

> We deserve

What do you mean exactly?

Haven't all other technologies also impacted most people in many areas of their lives? How is AI different?

What exactly are you proposing?

Human level embodiment took 10,000x longer to evolve than human level abstract and symbolic information processing, and is also probably 10,000x harder to replicate in an alternative form.

I'm not responsible for deciding whether companies IPO. I'm also not fully apprised of Anthropic's current financials. I have done research deep dives into private and public companies for investment reasons.

All that said, my instinct is that the unprecedented context of Anthropic's IPO is not enough of a reason to prevent it from doing said IPO. If anthropic has insufficient capital and is operating at a significant loss, with no way to model a transition to profitability, or is over-valued, those are reasons I can understand.

My issue with the existential risk reason, is that there is also a risk that anthropic disrupts and deflates multiple industries while capturing that value for itself. If the public are blocked from participating in it's success, that is also a risk to the public. To people who are skeptical about AI and assume this is all a big scam I'm sure what I'm saying sounds delusional or like ajoke... But what I struggle with is how the logic can run one way but not the other.

Given the unprecedented potential impact at stake, the risks, the potential rewards, and the risks of not participating in the potential rewards, all seem similarly unprecedented.

Is this just a case of someone assuming the risks far outweigh the rewards? Is it that simple?

Is this weighting based on vibes?

Can anyone pull this apart for me?

> Today, at least at the undergrad level, universities function as a job screen for people who can dedicate themselves to an academic program and complete it

I predict that this is not going to last much longer itf institutions continue to avoid holding students accountable for egregious acts of academic misconduct.

Every time they choose student tuition over maintaining the integrity of the credentials the value of the credentials as a screen drops a little bit. At some point it will fall below a threshold, and then at some point afterwards the rest of society will realize it.

I clicked this link hoping to read about the number of cases, rate of spread/growth, history of outbreak, etc. and it was just a political rant about politicizing the topic (a bit ironic)...

I miss the times when things were a lot less politicized