Skydance doesn't really count as venture capital in this case. They're an actual media company that already owned Paramount and recently acquired Warner.

Let's be honest, these people aren't going to magically find work at a competitor overnight. Some of them will be unemployed or underemployed for 18+ months depending on what they were doing at Skydance/Paramount/Warner before taking the buyout. And i can almost guarantee you that the RTO and buyouts are aimed at Warner people. Though who knows, maybe they're stupid enough to bounce folks from Paramount.

In any case that is a poor excuse for people not being able to negotiate over work conditions or pay.

"Just go work somewhere else"
"There is nowhere else, you bought all the competiton"

Warner wasn't profitable though...

* by "airgapped" we mean we asked it pretty please to only use the wifi.

What I've heard is a market cap well north of a trillion dollars is expected.

Yes. As I said, market cap or "valued at" doesn't mean that's how much money people put in.

It is losing money combined with being a commodity + rapid obsolescence that seems strange to me.

Then don't buy shares. Anthropic is making an offer, which you can accept, or not. I certainly won't be. There are lots of good general reasons why you should never buy an IPO, especially as an individual investor. I'm not sure what's strange about it though. Lots of successful companies deal in commodities, including perishable ones, from whoever you buy your food from to Facebook and Microsoft.

Billions, not trillions. Two trillion is what you get when you multiply the hypothetical share price by the number of shares. They'll just sell a small fraction of them.

And yes, people do it all the time. Notable examples include Amazon, Uber, etc. Most American companies are not profitable at IPO:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

New trend? The venture capital business model has always been to fund startups, bring the rare successful one to IPO and then cash out.

I'm addressing the larger over-reliance on homework, that's why the reference to children.

You're trying to talk about a general problem by using language specific to a subset that is not under discussion. Yeah, sure.

It's for practice. Using homework for testing has always been a mediocre to dumb idea.

Hey, Nancy Reagan, glad to see you're still around!

I guess the old war on drugs thing was getting old so it's time for the new boogeyman?

The solution to that is AI. Finally, one-on-one tutoring becomes feasible.

AI to me is kind of like a self driving car... it would be one thing if the car actually drove itself and didn't require a licensed driver to sit behind the wheel and dedicate their full undivided attention to making sure the car doesn't do something stupid... yet no such thing at present exists.

You can take an Waymo in any of these cities:

• Phoenix metro, Arizona
• San Francisco Bay Area, California
• Los Angeles, California
• San Diego, California
• Denver, Colorado
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Dallas, Texas
• Houston, Texas
• San Antonio, Texas
• Austin, Texas
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Miami, Florida
• Orlando, Florida
• Tampa, Florida
• Nashville, Tennessee

"may be AI slop" is a nonsensical statement, because if it's slop it doesn't matter who wrote it. Whether AI did the coding is not really relevant, although it is a more objective claim.

AI though, it really took a surprising and discontinuous leap in capability with Chat GPT 3, with application across soo many (most?) recognition and prediction tasks.

Including self-driving. What besides driving consumes so many hours and lives, and potentially remediable? I think it's probably the biggest AI application of the 21st century. Looking back the transition will seem faster.

Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?