When the fed investigates this does it matter if one of the 3 companies is not a publicly traded company?
The issue is that it's an industry of investment which exists solely to power more investment in AI - the entire chain is still assuming that someone will eventually pay for this.
At the end of the day all that money leaks out to employees and suppliers...but no one those people transact with may have any interest in buying what was produced.
It's entirely based on the perception that LLM training & inference is here to stay at ever growing scales when the shortcomings of Artificial Dreaming are increasingly scrutinized. Not all businesses want to end up paying refunds to their clients like Deloitte [1] because the LLM hallucinated crap into their reports (and they failed to correct it).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/06/deloi...
This assumes Deloitte didn't make more $$$ from the deal by "outsourcing" it to AI than not. It was a partial refund.
And you haven't considered that Deloitte might get this money some other way anyway. It's been budgeted and needs to be spent by the government department for this financial year. They'll find another project to hand out.
In terms of actual earnings not sure Tesla is doing better.
I used it to learn terraform and have a kubernetes cluster running.
I know it's always trendy to bash oracle and simp for AWS, but it is THE best option for learning and hobbyists.
Learning terraform isn't hard, it's what you stitch together with terraform that is hard.
Can you get that without adding a payment mechanism? For some reason, I'd be more cautious about putting my card into Oracle's offering than anyone else.
No!
There are actually two free tiers.
The limited free tier you get without adding a CC and then this advanced "always free" tier I am using, where you have to use and verify a CC and have to pay big bucks if you mess up.
limited free tier: 300$ to be spent in 30 days
advanced always free tier: https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/FreeTier/freetier...
The big limitation is the 10mbit egress bandwidth, but you can work around that with (free) Cloudflare.
What's he going to do with all that money, and what does he care for the risk it's bad or shady?
Worst case, he got to be #1 for a bit for a few dozen billion, best case he's hoping AGI will extend his life before he croaks.
The implied equity risky premium is getting pretty low - a sign of greed.
As a more serious point related to this though, I was under the impression that organ replacement didn't address issues with telomere length?
The thing that unites Ellison, Trump, Musk, Thiel and a fair few of the other politically active billionaires is the obsession with "legacy" - they want to leave their mark in the history books, figures which will likely be remembered and taught in schools in thousands of years similar to Roman emperors.
Musk is the most obvious with his obsession of settling (and eventually dying) on Mars, Trump is dreaming of getting a Nobel Peace Prize (if only to not let Obama be the only US President who got one), and the rest is hunting for the "invented AGI" crown.
Only if those are the only actual real customers. It's not. The pie is a lot bigger. And with the current hype some other AI company will just take over and the bubble will continue.
We’re already seeing revolutions elsewhere — and it’s likely that trying to loot them further by generations who sold out the nation will simply lead to social collapse.
A pack of 3 oldies burst through our perimeter one winter night... the screaming woke me up. Outside my tent the forest was lit up red by our laser blasts, trying desparately to take them out.
We thought that a revolution would be a good idea, but an upside-down population pyramid is a hell of a thing when you're on the bottom.
Just using Google / Gold as a comparison [1].
Assume you have 100 units of each.
In late 2021, Googs gone up ~100% so you have to rebalance because you have $200 in Goog and $92 in Gold. So lets say you rebalance to 80 Goog (160$) and 144 Gold ($130).
In late 2022, Googs gone down ~40% so you have to rebalance because you have $96 in Goog and $141 in Gold. So lets say you rebalance to 100 Goog ($120) and 118 Gold ($112).
So over the course of 2 years Goog has gone up 20% and Golds gown down 5% but your investments are overall up 16%. Obviously a 100% Goog investment is higher but with more risk.
If you didn't do any rebalancing then you have a gain of 7.5% (100*1.2 + 100*0.95 = 215)
[1]: https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/PHYS:TSE?compariso...
Very simple example, and not the only way to do it - but people need to remember net worth being 500B is not 500B in the bank, and at some point the number doesnt matter
Inflation on the other hand definitely does reallocate real value to whoever already owns a lot of assets, and I believe inflation often goes along with bubbles, since credit expansion is what usually kicks off the bubble in the first place.
>By 1998, Yahoo was the beneficiary of a de facto Ponzi scheme. Investors were excited about the Internet. One reason they were excited was Yahoo's revenue growth. So they invested in new Internet startups. The startups then used the money to buy ads on Yahoo to get traffic. Which caused yet more revenue growth for Yahoo, and further convinced investors the Internet was worth investing in. When I realized this one day, sitting in my cubicle, I jumped up like Archimedes in his bathtub, except instead of "Eureka!" I was shouting "Sell!"
The real problem seemed to be that you can only put so much money into pets.com before it becomes stupid. You had more short term investment capital than could be _effectively_ spent at the time. The long term players, as usual, avoided the Archimedian idealism, and were heavily rewarded anyways.
pg has startup brains.
Words have meaning in context, and calling something a "Ponzi scheme" these days means any pyramid-like system that only works as long as new investors come to the table, because that new investor money is the sole source of gains for earlier investors. But once you run out of new investors, which is inevitable, the whole thing collapses. What pg described was exactly a Ponzi scheme in that sense, even if it wasn't a deliberate scam. And that's very different from other types of business ventures that eventually fail because of the more "normal" reason that they just don't gain traction.
And you do recognize the context of those words was 15 years ago at this point?
> was exactly a Ponzi scheme in that sense, even if it wasn't a deliberate scam
There are better terms of art to describe the scenario. If we lacked for those words I might grant you this point, but since we don't, I find the description lacking in precision if not completely faulty.
> the more "normal" reason that they just don't gain traction.
Is that actually the "normal reason" most businesses fail? I'm not sure it is.
Language is fluid, and many of words got their very known & popular meanings later, when people used for things that it didn't exactly mean what it was initially intended to, and it got popular.
People are ever less empathetic and sociable, this being the reason for such comments.
In this case dotcom investing was so stupid that it should have been recognized as stupid at the time, without hindsight. For someone who lost money, gave bad advice etc. insisting that they didn't fall for a Ponzi scheme means representing themselves as less terrible investors, regardless of facts.
That means: 1) Late investors end up taking a bath because it will actually take 10x longer to get a return than they thought. 2) Investment becomes inefficient - there are lot of GPUs being bought in 2025 that should have been bought in 2030. By the time 2030 comes along, those 2025 GPUs will be outdated, so the value they will provide will be less than if they had been purchased at the correct time
I don't get this. Of course there was. Specifically, March 10, 2000.
To declare that something is not worth investing in doesn't imply that it's useless. (and actually, swing investors will argue something can be worth investing in even though it is in fact useless, e.g. web3 and most crypto).
Though I guess with high velocity of money circulating in tight loops, everyone involved can feel rich. 1 million dollars changing hands once per day can potentially mint 365 'millionaires' during the course of a year. If they just pass it back and forth among themselves to buy each other's stocks and products and don't let that money escape their network to actually pay for something useful, they can all be millionaires... On paper.
Not to mention how relatively small amounts of money, moving at high velocity, can inflate asset prices... On Alice's birthday, Bob can buy 100 shares of Alice's shell company at a price of $10 per share. If Alice owns 1 million shares of the company (which she founded), it means that Alice's net worth is at least $10 million... It cost Bob only $1000 to give Alice a net worth of $10 million. Now imagine that same $1000 moving in and out of that company's stock, traded 1000 times per day between various people. With just $1000 circulating back-and-forth at high frequency (A.K.A. high-frequency trading), you can generate a trade volume of $1 million per day... So it all seems reasonable; a company with a $10 million valuation with $1 million daily trade volume... Nothing suspicious. So you can basically start a shell company and fake everything; from the market cap, to the trade volume; using only a relatively small amount of money. This is what they were doing in the early days of crypto.
The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed... But the same money, as profit, can barely hop between 6 people before it's taxed down to just 10% of its original number. High-velocity revenue can severely distort people's perceptions of the market, especially in the era of media filter bubbles.
Some people might interpret or represent the aforementioned transaction as justification for thinking Alice's net worth is at least $10M, but it is not an objective measure of Alice's purchasing power (as it would be in the case that Alice had $10M cash).
>The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed
On the US federal level. Not sure about other countries, but quite a few other governments in the US do tax revenue.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-corporate-inc...
>Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Washington impose gross receipts taxes instead of corporate income taxes. Delaware, Oregon, and Tennessee impose gross receipts taxes in addition to their corporate income taxes. Some localities in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia likewise impose gross receipts taxes, which are generally understood to be more economically harmful than corporate income taxes.
See also:
Under GAAP (normal accounting) A has a profit.
In reality are they profiting? Who knows - it depends how A does as a business.
It's crazy how all these small subtleties in definitions of various terms can create something so abominable in the aggregate. Makes one want to reach for a tinfoil hat. Not sure I can even trust the company which makes the tinfoil at this point.
You see companies hand waving this sort of thing away on earnings calls when they have a really bad quarter but the CEO is blowing smoke at shareholders saying “On non-GAAP this was an amazing corner.” Which is code speak for “that terrible decision I made a few quarters ago is coming home to roost and our lawyers have said I need to reflect that on our books. If you ignore where we screwed up badly, our numbers look good!”