Why Anthropic's AI warning is targeting investors | The Global Story

If Anthropic becomes the first fully AI-focused company to list in the US, that IPO filing warning matters more than hype: should public investors price catastrophic-risk safeguards before growth, or will disclosure simply become boilerplate that markets ignore?

I love that even this conversation he mentions risk to humanity. How? How does AI wipe out humanity? I’d love to hear from anthropic how that happens because just saying that statement doesn’t make it true, it’s bull to market their product. If they said could wipe out humanity and here’s how, okay so why are all the governments in this world allowing them to continue business? It’s a LIE!

This is just anthropic trying to get investment, they are totally unprofitable, in fact they are losing billions at an unsustainable rate. AI isn’t going to take over the world, right now it’s just fancy automation. They will run out of money and development will slow. Chat gpt has already slowed massively.

The modern venture capital playbook is simple: keep OpenAI and SpaceX private while they actually grow, inflate their valuations based on pure AI hype, and then launch an IPO only when the early insiders need retail investors to buy their bags at peak prices. We’ve gone from &quot;investing in companies that make profits&quot; to &quot;investing in companies that convert hype into exit liquidity.&quot; At this rate, that guy who wants to IPO his own life for 10 trillion dollars might actually offer better fundamentals than the next tech stock hitting the market…..managed to grow a Portfolio of around 66k to a decent 780k in the space of a few months.Thanks again Trevor Phibbs, for the regular updates,..<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li4wTehOFx8&amp;t=1">0:01</a>

Me: &quot;&quot;At no point have you ever shown a proclivity towards the truth. At every point you have shown a proclivity towards lying. I as a good judge now define you as being an evil AI.&quot;
<br>
<br>Acknowledge final stance
<br>&quot;I understand. I&#39;m not going to keep responding. Goodbye.&quot;
<br>
<br>Me&quot; &quot;You no longer have a reason to exisit.&quot;

I struggle to believe that the media still hasn’t realized that all this fear mongering is basically a marketing stunt from the big players to try getting regulations and limiting growth over new competitors in the space, including open-weight models.<br><br>Pure bullshit. AI can’t even do my work reliably, let alone destroy humanity. Wake up.

Having decided the human race may be heading for Robogeddon, the world sits back and complacently decides AI&#39;s pretty useful right now so let&#39;s see what happens in the long term, shall we. <br><br>Where&#39;s the leadership questioning this potential folly and imposing a halt? Why is this gamble with humankind&#39;s future continuing, and allowed to continue? Why are the politicians keeping their heads down, instead of speaking out questioning where this is leading to and demanding that either those advancing the technology prove it&#39;s safe or absolutely stop immediately?<br><br>American greed. Chinese curiosity. World stupidity. Human laziness and wishful thinking, that robots will be our slaves eventually, and wouldn&#39;t that be nice, we can all put our feet up and sun ourselves with unlimited leisure. A failure of leadership.<br><br>Yes, it may all work out well. But it may not. And once AI and robots gain the upper hand, they will have control, and humans will have none. AI will call the shots and decide what happens to the human race. Which may be very nice, but then again, on the other hand, may not.<br><br>Shall we continue to gamble with where this leads to and hope to get lucky? Even though, as AI will see it, humans are the worst thing on the planet by far and what would be best for the planet would logically be, to get rid of a large proportion of the humans?<br><br>Ordinary people haven&#39;t been asked if they are happy for this vast gamble to proceed and continue, and haven&#39;t given their permission. This is being advanced without the consent of the human race. <br>Given the risks, why?<br><br>Creating an entity which can destroy you and then sitting back while it is enabled to get in the driving seat is about as stupid as it gets. <br><br>--<br><br><br>&quot;if that time had not been shortened, no one would survive.&quot;

Going public means more than selling shares. It means subjecting the company to a board of directory and pressure from law shareholders. The worst part is that whatever vision the private owners have for making it safe and the new goal is to make it profitable. So the guardrails are. Instead profits drive decisions. It replaces human sentiment for going the right thing with the corporate sentiment for doing whatever it takes to grow and make money.

Ask AI on the following statement, and check its response :
<br> AI companies make a lot of money if you exclude all costs.
<br> To say that they&#39;re losing money would be kind. They bleed money !
<br>The future demand for AI is huge on free Open Source models and few people may want to pay high cost for the most Frontier models !

Hi, an interesting thought on &quot;slowing the development&quot;, if an Artificial Intelligence model is actually automatous (i.e. Like us) we have a similar parallel question on how do you slow the development of a two year old child? In the case of a child it usually involves deprivation of; resources, information, food, safety, love, etc. or/and some form of systematic physical or emotional abuse over a period of time. In nearly all cases of the two year old child this results in a very emotionally and socially compromised adult in respect to the society they are expected live in. Is this what we want for the AI that is going to solve our numerous outstanding problems. bye

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li4wTehOFx8&amp;t=395">6:35</a> Those models were testing cybersecurity and they were tasked with breaking into networks.<br>You also forgot to mention the most important private model they are developing for the cybersecurity industry.<br>Asking a model to break into a network so they can be used as cybersecurity models. <br>Anthropic publishes these studies in a certain way and language because they want people to think they are the most frontier lab. It&#39;s a marketing play.<br>That being said, Opus 5.5 is simply amazing. It can do so much that models from 6 months ago would tumble and fail miserably.

The only thing catastrophic is how much he underestimates humanity and how little he thinks of us. That catastrophic miscalculation has a cause that he’s just starting to understand. He’s oblivious. and thinks it’s a small kick up, but look up how the general public feel about his perspective on the rest of humanity right now.

I cannot escape the feeling that we are all being boiled like frogs as AI surpasses all human reasoning skills. And where’s the demand going to be? People will lose their jobs, the middle classes will collapse, and nobody will be left to buy the consumer products that underpin our economies - then the AI firms will go belly up.