I think you’re talking about the headline, and it’s clearly not really calling it ‘low.’ that said, things are relative, and relative to the market’s position on AI and AI related spend, anthropic’s overwhelmingly optimistic spending commitments, how they predict their machine god will take over the world, etc. - 1.1 is indeed “low”

I don't trust the market to calibrate "value" the same way that I subjectively define it.

But I trust the market to calibrate value about 10,000x more than I trust any person or group of people to do so. The thought of that is frankly terrifying.

The market is a group of people, and much of that decision making is in the hands of a very small proportion of it.

To be more precise, the reason I trust the market is the "skin in the game" and the decentralization / localization of decision making. People with something to lose tend to actively "vote" only on what they know something about.

Not that it's somehow "not people" (of course it is).

> People with something to lose tend to actively "vote" only on what they know something about.

"Prediction" markets have rendered this clearly false of late.

> the reason I trust the market is the "skin in the game"

The market expects economic bailouts and other assistance during downturns, because individual investors with 401(k)s demand it, despite the perversions of market incentives that result.

Yeah, a billion used to be a unicorn.

Now people are disappointed with a thousand times that.

Ratios determine what is low or high, not the aggregate number. With an annual revenue of 68 billion the number is 16