mattas

Intel is still up 75%+ YTD.

Meanwhile, there will be a line of VCs out the door rushing to give this kid a few million dollars. Because of this.

"The Git Platform for Teams."

"Right now, none of the above analysis applies because demand exceeds supply for frontier models, and supply is limited by a lack of compute."

It gets particularly hairy because models themselves can tune their "token verbosity" to manufacture demand for compute. If compute was such a precious resource, you'd think we'd be complaining that the output was too terse.

The ability for a vendor to determine ex post facto how much a query costs is a similarly new economic phenomenon to zero marginal cost.

I'd love to be losing like Anthropic.

"Everybody's Weirded Out by AI-Except the People Who Live in Zip Codes Starting with 940, 941, 944, 950 and 951"

The fact investors think (thought) SpaceX is worth more than $2T is another example of how they aren't familiar with rocket launches.

Shareholders lost $50B within a few seconds of the scrub.

A rational person isn't willing to pay more than the present value of future cash flows. Just like how a rational person wouldn't pay $101 for a $100 bill.

Where it gets fun is that: (1) we have people selling $100 bills for more than $100 and, (2) we have people gladly buying $100 bills for more than $100.

No one forced them to IPO well above the present value of their future cash flows. Or claim their TAM was $28 trillion.

The unlock is probably somewhere in that honest, load-bearing caveat.

Thinking out loud, is productivity the ultimate macro benefit of AI? Should we expect macro AI investment to be a leading indicator of macro productivity gains?

For example, did macro investment in factory automation predict future productivity gains?