[HN Gopher] Anthropic AI tool sparks selloff from software to br...
___________________________________________________________________
Anthropic AI tool sparks selloff from software to broader market
Author : garbawarb
Score : 60 points
Date : 2026-02-03 20:21 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| XiS wrote:
| https://archive.li/VyN2H
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Could this lead to more software products, more competition, and
| more software engineers employed at more companies?
| rishabhaiover wrote:
| maybe eventually, not in the near-term future.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| It's demonetizing process rent-seeking. AI can build whatever
| process you want, or some approximation of it.
| garbawarb wrote:
| I kind of imagine more people going off and building their own
| companies.
| DougN7 wrote:
| I think so too. But because of code quality issues and LLMs
| not handling the hard edge cases my guess is most of those
| startups will be unable to scale in any way. Will be
| interesting to watch.
| fishpham wrote:
| I think the argument is that tools like Claude Code will cause
| more companies to just build solutions in-house rather than
| purchase from a vendor.
| groceryheist wrote:
| This is correct. AI is a huge boon for open source, bespoke
| code, and end-user programming. It's death for business
| models that depend on proprietary code and products bloated
| with features only 5% of users use.
| hugs wrote:
| possibly also a boon for automated testing tools and infra
| designed for ai-driven coding.
| gip wrote:
| I'm not really understanding why Thomson Reuters is at direct
| risk from AI. Providing good data streams will still be very
| valuable?
| robotswantdata wrote:
| Huge legal tech business units
| yodon wrote:
| If customers start asking Claude first, before they ask Thomson
| Reuters, that's a big risk for the later company.
| gip wrote:
| Got it, thank you for the insight.
|
| The assumption is that Claude has access to a stream of
| fresh, currated data. Building that would be a different
| focus for Anthropic. Plus Thomson Reuters could build an
| integration. Not totally convinced that is a major threat
| yet.
| whitej125 wrote:
| TR will not disappear. But their value to the market was "data
| + interface to said data" and that value prop is quickly
| eroding to "just the data".
|
| You can be a huge, profitable data-only company... but it's
| likely going to be smaller than a data+interface company. And
| so, shareholder value will follow accordingly.
| palmotea wrote:
| Seems like they should hold tight to that data (and not
| license it for short-term profit), so customers have to use
| their interface to get at it.
| elemeno wrote:
| They're one of the two big names in legal data - Thomson
| Reuters Westlaw and RELX LexisNexis. They're not just search
| engines for law, but also hubs for information about how laws
| are being applied with articles from their in house lawyers
| (PSLs, professional support lawyers - most big law firms have
| them as well to perform much the same function) that summarise
| current case law so that lawyers don't have to read through all
| the judgements themselves.
|
| If AI tooling starts to seriously chip away at those
| foundations then it puts a large chunk of their business at
| risk.
| themgt wrote:
| The commodification of _expertise_ writ large is a bit mind
| boggling to contemplate.
| simianwords wrote:
| I came across this company called OpenEvidence. They seem to be
| offering semantic search on medical research. Founded in 2021.
|
| How could it possibly keep up with LLM based search?
| dnw wrote:
| It is a little more than semantic search. Their value prop is
| curation of trusted medical sources and network effects--
| selling directly to doctors.
|
| I believe frontier labs have no option but to go into verticals
| (because models are getting commoditized and capability
| overhang is real and hard to overcome at scale), however, they
| can only go into so many verticals.
| simianwords wrote:
| > Their value prop is curation of trusted medical sources
|
| Interesting. Why wouldn't an LLM based search provide the
| same thing? Just ask it to "use only trusted sources".
| tacoooooooo wrote:
| They're building a moat with data. They're building their
| own datasets of trusted sources, using their own teams of
| physicians and researchers. They've got hundreds of
| thousands of physicians asking millions of questions
| everyday. None of the labs have this sort of data coming in
| or this sort of focus on such a valuable niche
| simianwords wrote:
| > They're building their own datasets of trusted sources,
| using their own teams of physicians and researchers.
|
| Oh so they are not just helping in search but also in
| curating data.
|
| > They've got hundreds of thousands of physicians asking
| millions of questions everyday. None of the labs have
| this sort of data coming in or this sort of focus on such
| a valuable niche
|
| I don't take this too seriously because lots of
| physicians use ChatGPT already.
| palmotea wrote:
| > Why wouldn't an LLM based search provide the same thing?
| Just ask it to "use only trusted sources".
|
| Is that sarcasm?
| simianwords wrote:
| why?
| Rygian wrote:
| How does the LLM know which sources can be trusted?
| simianwords wrote:
| yeah it can avoid blogspam as sources and prioritise
| research from more prestigious journals or more
| citations. it will be smart enough to use some proxy.
| olliepro wrote:
| Much of the scientific medical literature is behind paywalls.
| They have tapped into that datasource (whereas ChatGPT doesn't
| have access to that data). I suspect that were the medical
| journals to make a deal with OpenAI to open up the access to
| their articles/data etc, that open evidence would rely on the
| existing customers and stickiness of the product, but in that
| circumstance, they'd be pretty screwed.
|
| For example, only 7% of pharmaceutical research is publicly
| accessible without paying. See
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7048123/
| roysting wrote:
| Can this really be a kind of herding stampede behavior over
| Cowork? It's been out several days now and just all the sudden
| today, all the traders suddenly got it into their little herd
| animal heads that everyone should rush to the exists... after
| that equally sketchy silver and gold rug pull type action last
| week?
|
| Something seems quite off. Am I the only one?
| retube wrote:
| Markets are not as efficient as the textbooks would have you
| believe. Investors typically rely on a fairly small set of
| analysts for market news and views. It might take those guys a
| while to think about stuff, write a note etc. The deepseek
| crash last year lagged by several days as well.
| andai wrote:
| I'm out of the loop, but I thought there were sophisticated
| automated trading algorithms where people pay to install
| microwave antennas so they can have 1ms lower latency. And I
| thought those systems are hooked up to run sentiment analysis
| on the news. Maybe the news is late?
| myth_drannon wrote:
| Paypal fell 20% today.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-03 23:01 UTC)