Anthropic at $2T isn't far-fetched

Commenters debated the Financial Times take that an Anthropic IPO at a multi‑trillion valuation isn't far‑fetched. vkaku argued valuations ignore the real product - the models’ outputs, inference costs and practical use - and called Claude expensive versus emerging tiny open models, saying enterprises can self‑host cheaper and that red‑teaming tools are a narrow niche; vkaku was bearish on the IPO and skeptical of SpaceX‑style AI investments. bluecalm contrasted Anthropic with SpaceX, saying SpaceX has a durable moat and infrastructure while Anthropic faces entrenched competitors (Google, Meta) with data and cash, making a $2T+ thesis hard to justify. pllbnk and guluarte suspected the FT piece was promotional, and rvz alleged some influencers covertly push AI IPOs; bigfishrunning agreed that optimistic headlines can boost investor sentiment.

Opinion divides over motive and merit: some commenters accused media and influencers of hyping valuations and stock price manipulation, while others (estearum, jjtheblunt) pushed back on broad conspiratorial framing and questioned metrics used to label outlets as “premier.” The clearest split was between those who see structural competitive and cost realities capping Anthropic’s value and those who view optimistic valuation narratives as plausible - or as opportunistic marketing to inflate IPO interest.