WhoIzDisIz
@WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
- Comment on Congrats on your big win!!! 5 hours ago:
Because their leaders are idiots who think attacking the symptom will eliminate the cause.
- Comment on Thank you to cm0002 for reposting my meme from lemmy to lemmy. 10 hours ago:
I’ve seen the user in question accused of actually being one of them. Didn’t bother checking in later to see how that went, tho.
- Comment on 1 day ago:
You can find issues with virtually any site that can play host to user content. Google’s unlikely to even be aware of this, let alone be involved.
- Comment on 1 day ago:
Dunno what’s responsible, but I couldn’t open this directly - nothing happened, presumably due to the tinyurl link. Put it through my URL cleaner app and wound up at the following address after a few redirects:
- Comment on Factory Entertainment Announces New Strange New Worls communicator, Captain Proton ray guns and Star Trek IV Klingon Phaser Prop Replicas 2 days ago:
That’s nice. Paramount ain’t getting a dime more of my money if I can help it.
- Comment on Every Kitchen needs one (or two just to be safe) 2 days ago:
It’s expensive to be a Trekie. At least the spoon rest could double as “Hand” for Halloween.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
Yeah, their pay isn’t the problem. The lobbying and corruption is.
- Comment on Mayor says he heard gun shots as he saw a black man running. He jumped in his pickup, chased him down and pointed a shotgun at his chest. Cops came and said it was fireworks behind the library 3 days ago:
TBF, most only learned of his existence when he was baiting Texas for their promised reward money for finding proof of voter fraud. He put on a pretty good progressive face at the time & fooled a lot of people.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
When the “right people” rarely are even an option - especially one that enough of the general populace can be convinced to vote for - that’s not getting us anywhere.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
Yeah, about that enforcement part… Never gonna happen without some major yourselfl upheaval.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
Campaigning to keep that job gets more time than the actual job. They consider it part of what we pay them for, which is utter bullshit.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
They already are. They never stop being greedy. Just look at Trump - he’s in the top seat, and it’s still not even close to satisfying his unquenchable thirst.
- Comment on Min wage in most states is so sad 3 days ago:
Probably why they’re here instead of Reddit.
- Comment on Why do capitalist Muslims love Muhammad so much? 3 days ago:
You didn’t post this in DadJokes… why?
- Comment on What shall I watch next? 5 days ago:
If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
- Comment on Why is gravity called gravity? Why not newton-vity or something else like leroy jenkins-vity? 5 days ago:
'Cause people are lazy, and gravity is easier to say. /s
Per Wikipedia,
In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas ‘weight’)
- Comment on Silicon Valley’s Big Money Is About to Get a Lot Bigger 1 week ago:
Article:
#Silicon Valley’s Big Money Is About to Get a Lot Bigger
When Anthropic goes public in a blockbuster offering, which investors will profit? The answer says a lot about how much start-up investing has changed over the years.
By Erin Griffith
Reporting from San Francisco Sept. 3, 2026
As the artificial intelligence companies Anthropic and OpenAI prepare to go public, the question around Silicon Valley is which investors will win big.
The answer, it turns out, is just about everyone.
At least 95 investors have put money into both Anthropic and OpenAI, according to a tally on PitchBook, which tracks private investment. Sequoia Capital, a marquee venture capital firm, invested in both start-ups. So did Founders Fund, Coatue Management and Altimeter Capital Management.
That’s highly unusual. In the past, venture capital firms that invest in young start-ups typically backed just one company in a fast-growing new technology category. Putting money into direct competitors was considered a conflict of interest.
But the A.I. boom has changed nearly everything around Silicon Valley, and the way that investors nurture start-ups is no exception. Top firms on Sand Hill Road — the famous stretch in Menlo Park, Calif., that remains the nexus of venture capital firms — have shifted their norms and adapted their strategies so that they do not miss out on investing in the A.I. companies that could be the next $2 trillion winner.
Few large investment funds want to say, “We missed both” OpenAI and Anthropic, said Karan Mehandru, an investor at Madrona Venture Group.
Just how much of Silicon Valley is tied up in the success or failure of Anthropic and OpenAI is evident from the amount of money that the two privately held companies have accumulated.
Anthropic has raised more than $130 billion from roughly 300 investors, according to PitchBook, including venture capital firms, hedge funds, big tech companies and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. OpenAI has raised more than $180 billion from roughly 230 investors, such as big tech companies and Joshua Kushner’s investment firm, Thrive Capital. ImageTwo men in suits talking to each other while sitting in armchairs. Josh Kushner, right, the founder of Thrive Capital, which has invested in OpenAI.Credit…Caroline Gutman for The New York Times
In contrast, Facebook (before it became Meta) raised just $2.4 billion ahead of going public in 2012 and Uber raised roughly $20 billion before reaching the stock market in 2019.
Not all of the investors named as Anthropic and OpenAI shareholders by PitchBook got their shares through traditional venture funding rounds; the list includes some who bought indirectly via private share sales on the “secondary market,” which is when investors obtain stock from existing shareholders like employees or early investor.
SpaceX’s successful $1.7 trillion initial public offering in June has further fueled investor excitement for Anthropic and OpenAI. Anthropic is heading toward a public offering this year that could value it at $2 trillion and become the biggest listing ever. OpenAI may go public next year, and its offering is also expected to be enormous.
For investors, that means “all the numbers are bigger, including the entry price and the exit price,” said Sohail Prasad, chief executive of Destiny100, a firm that bought shares of OpenAI and Anthropic on the secondary market.
Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment. (The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, claiming copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. The two companies have denied those claims.)
For years, venture capital investors followed similar rules. Their idea was to take a big stake in a young company and help it with advice. The investor would take a seat on the start-up’s board.
When Facebook went public, the venture firm Accel Partners owned 11.4 percent of the company’s stock. Jim Breyer, a partner at the firm, sat on Facebook’s board alongside Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel, two other venture capital investors.
And when Uber went public, the venture firm Benchmark Capital Partners owned 11 percent of the company. One of Benchmark’s investors, Matt Cohler, sat on the board.
But Anthropic, which was founded five years ago, looks very different. That’s partly because venture firms initially dismissed the company as a science project. More than 20 firms rejected the start-up’s pitch, Anjney Midha, an Anthropic investor, said on a recent podcast. Instead, people in effective altruism circles, the philanthropic movement that prioritizes data and analysis for social causes, first invested in Anthropic.
Spark Capital, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, eventually led a round of funding in Anthropic in 2023. Yasmin Razavi, a Spark Capital investor, joined Anthropic’s board.
Around that time, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, and Neerav Kingsland, an Anthropic executive, visited the home of Guy Oseary, a Hollywood talent manager who invests in tech through his firm, Sound Ventures. Mr. Oseary was impressed by Anthropic’s pitch, said a person familiar with the matter who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. But Sound Ventures had already invested in OpenAI.
So the firm got permission from Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive, and Dr. Amodei to invest in both companies, the person familiar with the matter said. That made Sound Ventures one of the first firms to put money into both competitors.
Soon after, Mr. Oseary raised a new fund dedicated to A.I. “We believed this would be the most important technology of our lifetime,” he said in a statement.
As Anthropic and OpenAI grew, their need for capital outpaced backing from many venture firms, which were not set up to write checks that big. Menlo Ventures, a Silicon Valley firm known for backing Uber, engineered a workaround. To further invest in Anthropic, the firm in 2024 created a “special purpose vehicle,” a fund that rounded up many small investors into one $750 million entity controlled by Menlo.
Thrive Capital created a similar vehicle to invest in OpenAI in 2024.
Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Nvidia also took stakes in both Anthropic and OpenAI and have signed large contracts to provide cloud computing services or chips to them. Some of these giants are now the biggest shareholders of the start-ups.
Lightspeed Venture Partners and Iconiq Capital, two large investment firms in Silicon Valley, later led funding rounds in Anthropic. Menlo, Lightspeed and Iconiq now own 1 percent to 2 percent of Anthropic, said three people familiar with the investments. The financial backing ranks them among the A.I. start-up’s largest outside investors. (Menlo and Lightspeed do not own stakes in OpenAI; Iconiq has a small stake in it.)
Venture capital firms usually aim to own more than 1 percent or 2 percent of a start-up, but the potential for Anthropic to go public at a $2 trillion value means the investors will still see an enormous windfall. Ms. Razavi of Spark Capital is the only investor with a seat on Anthropic’s board.
After Anthropic’s coding and business automation tools took off last year, investing in the company became “consensus,” a term that venture investors use to denote a success that’s obvious to the whole industry. Investors worldwide fought to get shares, despite the lack of detailed information about the company’s performance or board seats.
Sequoia Capital had previously declined to invest in Anthropic, partly because it had backed Elon Musk’s xAI, a competitor, and was also a significant investor in OpenAI, a person familiar with the firm said. But this year, Sequoia Capital contributed to two financing rounds for Anthropic, including as a co-leader of one in May that valued the company at $900 billion.
Other investment firms obtained shares of Anthropic and OpenAI when the A.I. companies bought smaller firms with stock. Anthropic has acquired at least four companies and OpenAI roughly a dozen, according to PitchBook.
Madrona got shares in OpenAI last year after the San Francisco company bought Statsig, a provider of A.I. software, for $1.1 billion. Madrona owned a piece of Statsig, which meant its shares converted into shares of OpenAI.
Statsig was doing well, Mr. Mehandru said, but his firm was happy to trade that stock for shares in OpenAI. “If it had been stock from someone else,” he said, “maybe the answer would have been different.”
In February, Madrona also obtained shares in Anthropic when the A.I. start-up acquired Vercept, a company that makes agents that can remotely operate computers. Madrona had been an investor in Vercept.
- Comment on I wonder sometimes if a depressed man that masturbates is actually a tear jerker. 1 week ago:
Seems likely to go too far in the opposite direction, but I’ll look forward to your updates on how it’s going.
- Comment on I wonder sometimes if a depressed man that masturbates is actually a tear jerker. 1 week ago:
If he masturbates so furiously that he tears what he’s jerking, it’s no wonder he’s so depressed.
- Comment on economy 1 week ago:
You’re our “top economists?” This explains a LOT!
- Comment on 1 week ago:
And those that are so full after abstaining for No Nut November.
- Comment on Extra Milky 1 week ago:
I remember putting more… milky stuff… in my pregnant wife before drinking her milk. Does that qualify?
- Comment on Don't Worry About Retirement, Millennials 1 week ago:
No, somebody read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and decided to use the answer to the Ultimate Question.
- Comment on I stand with Spider-Woman 🏳️⚧️ 2 weeks ago:
Nah - it doesn’t specify what he’ll “shoot…”
- Comment on America needs a moratorium on AI data centers 2 weeks ago:
That must be more recent because I most certainly was encouraged to look things up in school. But then I’m Gen X.
- Comment on America needs a moratorium on AI data centers 2 weeks ago:
Less lazy, maybe. “Smart” seems like a bit of a nebulous term to me. I remember seeing some utterly ingenious posts in the r/redneckengineering sub, and then there are intellectuals who can’t cook spaghetti.
- Comment on America needs a moratorium on AI data centers 2 weeks ago:
FWIW, I always tag users with a reminder in my client first before blocking them (if I choose to go that far), and the end of that tag has the URL for whatever it was that caused me to do so. The whole thing doesn’t show, but the fact someone’s got a tag at all can allow me to see it by editing it again if I need to.
- Comment on How do I identify someone who has deleted their post? 2 weeks ago:
That forces one to spend extra time to restart things that were already started. At the same time, I can see the need to allow people to delete things they might have realized they revealed too much in (or some similar reason).
My suggestion would be involving mods (although I hate to put more work on them) via a process that allows OP to request deletion, then hide it until a mod can decide if it should be deleted entirely, or just the username disassociated from it so the conversation isn’t abruptly yanked from participants.
- Comment on How do I identify someone who has deleted their post? 2 weeks ago:
delete the user name but keep the content up.
I’m all for this, as I’ve found myself in the same boat at times and it kinda ticks me off that the time I spent trying to help was just thrown away on a whim by someone with no respect for the idea of community. They should not have control over the value of my time like that. But then again, shitty “mods” (who don’t seem to know what the origin word for their title means) have done similarly, so 🤷♀️?
- Comment on Wash Post Told to Rehire Columnist Fired for Kirk Posts 2 weeks ago:
Why? You know they’ll just find some other excuse to fire her, and, knowing that probability, she will have to be walking on eggshells trying to act as perfectly as possible to avoid giving them said excuse. What’s the point of returning to what is obviously a hostile work environment?