gitfan86

Trump won in big part because he said he was going to bring Elon in to fix the government.

Just because you don't like Trump and Elon doesn't mean that democracy isn't working as intended.

Yes the people who were suing SpaceX for not hiring enough immigrants while SpaceX was also required to hire US citizens should be fired. This is what we voted for. If you don't like it you should support a candidate that doesn't focus on identity politics and win the next election, then that candidate can focus on lawsuits and regulations against the greatest innovator alive.

Your numbers are wrong. The last quarter profit was $19B and the projected profit is 21B next quarter. That is 84B/year profit with zero growth.

If META,STARGATE,xAI,etc.. all increased spending rapidly you could get to 200B profit rate in 2026.

3T / 200B = 15

That means they could return a 6.6 dividend which is higher than 10 year bonds and is in no way overvalued by historial standards.

All that to say, I sold all my NVDA last month because I don't think Wall St. is buying that everyone is going to actually invest that much.

Up until recently there was a belief by some investors that OpenAI was going to "cure cancer" or something as big as that. They assumed that the money flowing into OpenAI would 10x, under the assumption that no one else could catch up with them after that event and a lot of that would flow to NVDA.

Now is looks like that 10x of flow of money into OpenAI will no longer exist. There will be competition and compodiditzation, which causes the value of the tokens to drop way more than 40x.

People owned NVDA because they believed that huge NVDA hardware purchases was the ONLY way to get a AI replacement for a Mid Level software engineer or similar functionality.

Yes, it is still a valid business model and I would expect MSFT to continue to make profits.

What has changed is the perception that people like OpenAI/MSFT would have an edge on the competition because of their huge datacenters full of NVDA hardware. That is no longer true. People now believe that you can build very capable AI applications for far less money. So the perception is that the big guys no longer have an edge.

Tesla had already proven that to be wrong. Tesla's Hardware 3 is a 6 year old design, and it does amazingly well on less than 300 watts. And that was mostly trained on a 8k cluster.

As someone who bought NVDA in early 2023 and sold in late 2024 I can say this is wrong.

There was never a question of if NVDA hardware would have high demand in 2025 and 2026. Everyone still expects them to sell everything they make. The reason the stock is crashing is because Wall St believed that companies who bought 50B+ of NVDA hardware would have a moat. That was obviously always incorrect, TPUs and other hardware was eventually going to be good enough for real world use cases. But Wall St is run by people who don't understand technology.

They could if their living expenses went to zero because everything was automated

Just look up the history of the word on wikipedia. You think a right wing person got edit access to that page and added the most recent change?

Just read the threads here. People are specifically saying Obama's criticism of Woke are no longer valid because the word has changed. But Paul is using the same definition that Obama used.

Is is the progressives who have decided unilaterally that woke is now a pejorative that racists use to demonize progressives and doesn't mean what it used to mean 5 years ago.

That is kind of the point Paul is making in his essay. The most progressive people are pushing an ever evolving definition of what it means to be racist or anti-science or a bigot.

This is why Trump won. People got tired of being told they were a bigot if they expressed any concerns that were not inline with the most recent trends of progressivism.

You obviously didn't read the article. He calls out how virtue signallers quickly change what the rules are around which word are OK.

Here is someone who you may or may not consider to be a far right bad actor explaining what woke is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

You are dismissing the issue by implying it is a right wing thing.

Obama is using the term and criticising people who do it in this clip. I in no way consider him to be right wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

I've made millions of dollars and my car drives me around today because of Elon. I'm not sure why you think I should hate the guy like you do?

Because a Tweet from 2016 wasn't accurate?

Yes that is what i'm saying but people still have the "I HATE ELON" blinders on and can't think for themselves.

Tesla Driver assistance as it exists today makings driving far easier. You can relax and once you learn where it needs help very rarely take over. It only needs to continue the rate of improvement for another 9 months and you have robot taxi.

Lots of people are ignoring this because of politics.

The concerns are not around excessive pay but future demands related to seniority. 170k sounds reasonable today, but when you add in a yearly 5% pay raise AND inflation adjustments AND overtime and sick time and retirement contributions it adds up to be a lot.

For example there was a cop in Massachusetts who had "retired" twice and was getting 280k/year due to the way the union rules were set up.

Bird scooters operating margins are very good if you only measure specific locations on specific times of the week.

It is risky to ignore total profit and loss of the entire company

Reasoning and MultiModal are emerging out of the larger LLMs. That opens up more use cases, which then drive demand for inference. And that also drives demand for more research. It is hard to say exactly which use cases are going to be huge in a year but it seems very likely that more use cases will open up given how widely you could apply even a small amount of visual reasoning with robotics.

I agree that AGI is a meaningless term.

I'm intentionally including FSD and LLMs under the same category of technologies that will have a huge impact. The point of this thread is that the demand for inference is going to skyrocket because AI is going to get a lot more useful.

I would point you to tow pieces of data.

1. Drive a new Tesla with the latest Supervised FSD and measure how often you have to intervene to stop a crash.

2. Go back and look at your own expectations around AI two years ago. Did thing progress the way you expected or did they progress further?

The cost to run models of a specific quality goes down by about 90% a year. So the unprofitable $50/month cost becomes profitable in about 6 months.

But the big deal isn't OAI being a profitable company. The big deal is that GPT6 will be 100x more useful in doing productive work.

Tulips did not have cash flow like this. It was only people selling to speculators who hoped to sell again to another speculator.

That is wonderful that there are Bitcoin ATMs. The profit generated by the owners of those ATMs isn't a scam, it is real revenue.

The scam is comparing some ATMs to what is happening in AI. Trillions of dollars are going into AI and actually useful things like self driving cars are coming out.

Beanie Babies, Tulips, NFTs, Web3 tokens were all obviously not going to change the world. The bubble was pure emotion and greed. All the cash inflows were speculation.

Nvidia made 18 billion in profit last quarter, and expects to make 20 next quarter. That isn't speculation.

People got burned by crypto, they promised that it would replace Fiat money but all that happened is that they lost all their money investing in NFTs or Web3. So now they are jaded against any new hyped technology, and have no interest in investing, and are actively hoping it fails for FOMO reasons

Yes, because NASA and Boeing have been both putting their own spin on the things they say. If you read his threads on X you can get a good idea of what I'm talking about

The highest quality and most up to date source is EricBerger on X https://x.com/SciGuySpace

The good news is that they should be able to replicate real world events to validate of this is true or not.

Tesla FSD is a good example of this in real life. You can measure how closely the car acts like a human based off of interventions and crashes that were due to unhuman behavior, as well in the first round of the robot taxi fleet which will have a safety driver, you can measure how many people complain that the driver was bad

Type 2 has had a high correlation with obesity and high carb diets.

They probably don't get to claim agile story points until the ticket is in finished state. And they probably have a culture where vanity Metrics like "velocity" are prioritized