Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

📢Diff3r: fast feed-forward 3DGS + per-scene optimization Yueh-Cheng Liu predicts optimization-ready 3DGS init end to end, computing implicit gradients via Implicit Function Theorem + Gauss-Newton approximation for fast & stable results Check it out:

angelaqdai's profile picture

Angela Dai

9,717 subscribers

17,876 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Check out 🌟Vid2Sim: Generalizable, Video-based Reconstruction of Appearance, Geometry & Physics for Mesh-Free Simulation #CVPR2025, from Lingjie Liu’s lab at UPenn. Congrats to Chuhao Chen! Vid2Sim aims to achieve system identification by reconstructing geometry, appearance, and physical properties directly from video. It combines learned data priors with closed-loop optimization: a feed-forward predictor trained on physical prior, followed by fast refinement via Neural Jacobian and mesh-free simulation. The system delivers simulation-ready outputs in minutes, with strong generalization across objects and materials. 🏠Project page: #PhysicalAI #AIGC #CV #CG #simulation #graphics
1:06

Check out 🌟Vid2Sim: Generalizable, Video-based Reconstruction of Appearance, Geometry & Physics for Mesh-Free Simulation #CVPR2025, from Lingjie Liu’s lab at UPenn. Congrats to Chuhao Chen! Vid2Sim aims to achieve system identification by reconstructing geometry, appearance, and physical properties directly from video. It combines learned data priors with closed-loop optimization: a feed-forward predictor trained on physical prior, followed by fast refinement via Neural Jacobian and mesh-free simulation. The system delivers simulation-ready outputs in minutes, with strong generalization across objects and materials. 🏠Project page: #PhysicalAI #AIGC #CV #CG #simulation #graphics

Zhiyang (Frank) Dou

12,393 views • 1 year ago

The Genie 3 release is a perfect moment to have a discussion about the future of 3D But first it would be nice to make the terminology more clear, specifically: What is a “spatial representation” Implicit vs Explicit Generalization vs Specialization Reconstruction vs Generation Production vs Execution Let’s start: For me, a spatial representation is just a way to describe a thing in the physical world The core property that makes it useful is consistency You can enforce consistency explicitly via rendering equations, geometric constraints, and physics Or implicitly, purely through training data Then, your representation parameters can be explicit, like points, gaussians, triangles, voxels, etc. Or implicit, weights or latent vectors Parameters alone are not the representation. It’s a combination of the parameters, the process that produces them, and the way you materialize them through a function (physics-based rendering, simulation, neural network, etc.) Generalization means you take data from multiple scene observations, and then produce a map from desired input to representation parameters Specialization means you take single-scene observations and directly fit a function parameters to describe thar scene Many representations can serve both of the approaches, as long as you keep them differentiable Both of the above can be used for reconstruction, where the main goal is to explain observations through a lens of physics (hard constraint) On the other hand, generation needs generalization, and its task is to produce statistically plausible results that could be conditioned on observations (soft constraint) Both tasks are not solved yet and they can complement each other in various ways Yet another important aspect is the difference between production and execution Production = process of going from inputs to parameters Execution = process of going from parameters to result It’s important to separate these, because most usecases require fast execution to be viable which is severely constrained by the hardware So, are *world models* like Genie an important step forward? Yes Do they make other representations obsolete? Maybe some of them - but there are tons of economically valuable tasks that won’t be solved by it, at least in any observable future
0:33

The Genie 3 release is a perfect moment to have a discussion about the future of 3D But first it would be nice to make the terminology more clear, specifically: What is a “spatial representation” Implicit vs Explicit Generalization vs Specialization Reconstruction vs Generation Production vs Execution Let’s start: For me, a spatial representation is just a way to describe a thing in the physical world The core property that makes it useful is consistency You can enforce consistency explicitly via rendering equations, geometric constraints, and physics Or implicitly, purely through training data Then, your representation parameters can be explicit, like points, gaussians, triangles, voxels, etc. Or implicit, weights or latent vectors Parameters alone are not the representation. It’s a combination of the parameters, the process that produces them, and the way you materialize them through a function (physics-based rendering, simulation, neural network, etc.) Generalization means you take data from multiple scene observations, and then produce a map from desired input to representation parameters Specialization means you take single-scene observations and directly fit a function parameters to describe thar scene Many representations can serve both of the approaches, as long as you keep them differentiable Both of the above can be used for reconstruction, where the main goal is to explain observations through a lens of physics (hard constraint) On the other hand, generation needs generalization, and its task is to produce statistically plausible results that could be conditioned on observations (soft constraint) Both tasks are not solved yet and they can complement each other in various ways Yet another important aspect is the difference between production and execution Production = process of going from inputs to parameters Execution = process of going from parameters to result It’s important to separate these, because most usecases require fast execution to be viable which is severely constrained by the hardware So, are *world models* like Genie an important step forward? Yes Do they make other representations obsolete? Maybe some of them - but there are tons of economically valuable tasks that won’t be solved by it, at least in any observable future

Lucky Iyinbor

13,959 views • 5 months ago

3D scanning and rendering is moving so fast - got my splats up and running and I'm mind blown getting ~100fps for this complex 3D scene ⬇️ 🤯 1. WAY faster than NeRF: For comparison, NeRFs would takes around 10 seconds per frame (!) Instead I'm zipping around with FPV controls without breaking a sweat - though I do crash a few times towards the end of the video lol 2. Old Meets New: Gaussian Splatting is cool in that it fuses classical graphics and deep learning techniques. Like NeRFs, this is still a radiance field - just without the slower (ne)ural rendering part. 3. Explicit Representation: Instead you represent a 3D scene as a collection of ellipsoidal "splats" called gaussians. Each gaussian has a position, size, and color. Rendering in real-time is done by projecting into the image plane and alpha blending. 4. Photorealistic Effects: Gaussian splatting use spherical harmonics to represent the view-dependent effects and lighting - allowing surfaces to change color when viewed from different angles, enabling greater photorealism. It doesn't use a neural network, but the training loop is similar to deep learning. 5. Enables Direct Editing: But it's not just speed - with Gaussian Splatting you also get 3D editing support! So you can select, move, and delete stuff, even relight stuff. This type of editing has been more tedious to do with NeRFs and their implicit black box representations. 📲 More tests cooking! Much more to unpack here including simpler explanations. If you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy my feed: Bilawal Sidhu
0:35

3D scanning and rendering is moving so fast - got my splats up and running and I'm mind blown getting ~100fps for this complex 3D scene ⬇️ 🤯 1. WAY faster than NeRF: For comparison, NeRFs would takes around 10 seconds per frame (!) Instead I'm zipping around with FPV controls without breaking a sweat - though I do crash a few times towards the end of the video lol 2. Old Meets New: Gaussian Splatting is cool in that it fuses classical graphics and deep learning techniques. Like NeRFs, this is still a radiance field - just without the slower (ne)ural rendering part. 3. Explicit Representation: Instead you represent a 3D scene as a collection of ellipsoidal "splats" called gaussians. Each gaussian has a position, size, and color. Rendering in real-time is done by projecting into the image plane and alpha blending. 4. Photorealistic Effects: Gaussian splatting use spherical harmonics to represent the view-dependent effects and lighting - allowing surfaces to change color when viewed from different angles, enabling greater photorealism. It doesn't use a neural network, but the training loop is similar to deep learning. 5. Enables Direct Editing: But it's not just speed - with Gaussian Splatting you also get 3D editing support! So you can select, move, and delete stuff, even relight stuff. This type of editing has been more tedious to do with NeRFs and their implicit black box representations. 📲 More tests cooking! Much more to unpack here including simpler explanations. If you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy my feed: Bilawal Sidhu

Bilawal Sidhu

337,090 views • 2 years ago

🚀 Announcing Echo — our new frontier model for 3D world generation. Echo turns a simple text prompt or image into a fully explorable, 3D-consistent world. Instead of disconnected views, the result is a single, coherent spatial representation you can move through freely. This is part of a bigger shift in AI: from generating pixels and tokens to generating spaces. Echo predicts a geometry-grounded 3D scene at metric scale, meaning every novel view, depth map, and interaction comes from the same underlying world — not independent hallucinations. Once generated, the world is interactive in real time. You control the camera, explore from any angle, and render instantly — even on low-end hardware, directly in the browser. High-quality 3D world exploration is no longer gated by expensive equipment. Under the hood, Echo infers a physically grounded 3D representation and converts it into a renderable format. For our web demo, we use 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) for fast, GPU-friendly rendering — but the representation itself is flexible and can be easily adapted. Why this matters: consistent 3D worlds unlock real workflows — digital twins, 3D design, game environments, robotics simulation, and more. From a single photo or a line of text, Echo builds worlds that are reliable, editable, and spatially faithful. Echo also enables scene editing and restyling. Change materials, remove or add objects, explore design variations — all while preserving global 3D consistency. Editing no longer breaks the world. This is only the beginning. Echo is the foundation for future world models with dynamics, physical reasoning, and richer interaction — environments that don’t just look right, but behave right. Explore the generated worlds on our website and sign up for the closed beta. The era of spatial intelligence starts here. 🌍 #Echo #WorldModels #SpatialAI #3DFoundationModels Check it out:
1:07

🚀 Announcing Echo — our new frontier model for 3D world generation. Echo turns a simple text prompt or image into a fully explorable, 3D-consistent world. Instead of disconnected views, the result is a single, coherent spatial representation you can move through freely. This is part of a bigger shift in AI: from generating pixels and tokens to generating spaces. Echo predicts a geometry-grounded 3D scene at metric scale, meaning every novel view, depth map, and interaction comes from the same underlying world — not independent hallucinations. Once generated, the world is interactive in real time. You control the camera, explore from any angle, and render instantly — even on low-end hardware, directly in the browser. High-quality 3D world exploration is no longer gated by expensive equipment. Under the hood, Echo infers a physically grounded 3D representation and converts it into a renderable format. For our web demo, we use 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) for fast, GPU-friendly rendering — but the representation itself is flexible and can be easily adapted. Why this matters: consistent 3D worlds unlock real workflows — digital twins, 3D design, game environments, robotics simulation, and more. From a single photo or a line of text, Echo builds worlds that are reliable, editable, and spatially faithful. Echo also enables scene editing and restyling. Change materials, remove or add objects, explore design variations — all while preserving global 3D consistency. Editing no longer breaks the world. This is only the beginning. Echo is the foundation for future world models with dynamics, physical reasoning, and richer interaction — environments that don’t just look right, but behave right. Explore the generated worlds on our website and sign up for the closed beta. The era of spatial intelligence starts here. 🌍 #Echo #WorldModels #SpatialAI #3DFoundationModels Check it out:

SpAItial AI

176,105 views • 7 months ago

Alright, this one’s worth your attention if you’re building or deploying agents. Future AGI just open-sourced their entire platform and i don’t mean a trimmed-down version. this is the full stack: UI, backend, simulation engine, evals, optimization loop, observability, guardrails, gateway, docs. all in one repo. Apache 2.0. I’ve been putting it through its paces on production agents, and what stands out isn’t just the breadth it’s the architecture. Most of the current “agent reliability” stack is fragmented. tracing lives in one tool, evals in another, guardrails somewhere else. you end up manually connecting dots, and the agent itself doesn’t really improve you just keep patching prompts and hoping for the best. This flips that model. It’s built as a closed feedback loop: simulate failures → evaluate in real time → detect production issues → learn from them → generate fixes → validate against real traffic → check regressions → redeploy → monitor again And when something new breaks, the loop just runs again. no manual glue. The simulation piece is especially strong. instead of static test cases, it generates adversarial, multi-turn conversations based on how your agent actually behaves basically hunting for the exact scenarios where your system fails confidently. ran a few thousand simulations on our side… caught things we definitely would’ve missed. Evals run fast (sub-50ms) across modalities. not LLM-as-judge trained classifiers. guardrails are built-in, not layered on top. observability gives you step-level visibility into reasoning, cost, latency, quality. But the real shift is the optimization loop. Most tools tell you *what* broke. this system actually fixes it, validates the fix, and ensures nothing else regresses. That’s the missing layer. It’s clearly built with production in mind not a research demo. and the fact that it’s self-hostable makes it even more relevant if you’re running serious workloads. If you’ve been duct-taping together infra around your agents, this is probably the closest thing to a unified system i’ve seen so far. Worth checking out. If you're serious about deploying reliable AI agents, this is worth a look: 👉 You can also try it instantly (no setup) via their cloud version:
2:20

Alright, this one’s worth your attention if you’re building or deploying agents. Future AGI just open-sourced their entire platform and i don’t mean a trimmed-down version. this is the full stack: UI, backend, simulation engine, evals, optimization loop, observability, guardrails, gateway, docs. all in one repo. Apache 2.0. I’ve been putting it through its paces on production agents, and what stands out isn’t just the breadth it’s the architecture. Most of the current “agent reliability” stack is fragmented. tracing lives in one tool, evals in another, guardrails somewhere else. you end up manually connecting dots, and the agent itself doesn’t really improve you just keep patching prompts and hoping for the best. This flips that model. It’s built as a closed feedback loop: simulate failures → evaluate in real time → detect production issues → learn from them → generate fixes → validate against real traffic → check regressions → redeploy → monitor again And when something new breaks, the loop just runs again. no manual glue. The simulation piece is especially strong. instead of static test cases, it generates adversarial, multi-turn conversations based on how your agent actually behaves basically hunting for the exact scenarios where your system fails confidently. ran a few thousand simulations on our side… caught things we definitely would’ve missed. Evals run fast (sub-50ms) across modalities. not LLM-as-judge trained classifiers. guardrails are built-in, not layered on top. observability gives you step-level visibility into reasoning, cost, latency, quality. But the real shift is the optimization loop. Most tools tell you *what* broke. this system actually fixes it, validates the fix, and ensures nothing else regresses. That’s the missing layer. It’s clearly built with production in mind not a research demo. and the fact that it’s self-hostable makes it even more relevant if you’re running serious workloads. If you’ve been duct-taping together infra around your agents, this is probably the closest thing to a unified system i’ve seen so far. Worth checking out. If you're serious about deploying reliable AI agents, this is worth a look: 👉 You can also try it instantly (no setup) via their cloud version:

Aakash Verma

22,889 views • 3 months ago

🚨 SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Paper Alert 🚨 ➡️Paper Title: WorldExplorer: Towards Generating Fully Navigable 3D Scenes 🌟Few pointers from the paper 🎯Generating 3D worlds from text is a highly anticipated goal in computer vision. Existing works are limited by the degree of exploration they allow inside of a scene, i.e., produce stretched-out and noisy artifacts when moving beyond central or panoramic perspectives. 🎯 To this end, authors of this paper proposed “WorldExplorer”, a novel method based on autoregressive video trajectory generation, which builds fully navigable 3D scenes with consistent visual quality across a wide range of viewpoints. 🎯They initialize their scenes by creating multi-view consistent images corresponding to a 360 degree panorama. 🎯Then, they expanded it by leveraging video diffusion models in an iterative scene generation pipeline. 🎯Concretely, they generated multiple videos along short, pre-defined trajectories, that explore the scene in depth, including motion around objects. 🎯Their novel scene memory conditions each video on the most relevant prior views, while a collision-detection mechanism prevents degenerate results, like moving into objects. 🎯Finally,they fuse all generated views into a unified 3D representation via 3D Gaussian Splatting optimization. 🎯Compared to prior approaches, WorldExplorer produces high-quality scenes that remain stable under large camera motion, enabling for the first time realistic and unrestricted exploration. 🎯They believe this marks a significant step toward generating immersive and truly explorable virtual 3D environments. 🏢Organization: TU München 🧙Paper Authors: Manuel-Andreas Schneider, Lukas Höllein , Matthias Niessner 📝 Read the Full Paper here: 🗂️ Project Page: 🧑‍💻 Code: 🎥 Be sure to watch the attached Technical Summary Video - Sound on 🔊🔊 Find this Valuable 💎 ? ♻️QT and teach your network something new Follow me 👣, naveen manwani , for the latest updates on Tech and AI-related news, insightful research papers, and exciting announcements. #SIGGRAPHAsia2025
3:36

🚨 SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Paper Alert 🚨 ➡️Paper Title: WorldExplorer: Towards Generating Fully Navigable 3D Scenes 🌟Few pointers from the paper 🎯Generating 3D worlds from text is a highly anticipated goal in computer vision. Existing works are limited by the degree of exploration they allow inside of a scene, i.e., produce stretched-out and noisy artifacts when moving beyond central or panoramic perspectives. 🎯 To this end, authors of this paper proposed “WorldExplorer”, a novel method based on autoregressive video trajectory generation, which builds fully navigable 3D scenes with consistent visual quality across a wide range of viewpoints. 🎯They initialize their scenes by creating multi-view consistent images corresponding to a 360 degree panorama. 🎯Then, they expanded it by leveraging video diffusion models in an iterative scene generation pipeline. 🎯Concretely, they generated multiple videos along short, pre-defined trajectories, that explore the scene in depth, including motion around objects. 🎯Their novel scene memory conditions each video on the most relevant prior views, while a collision-detection mechanism prevents degenerate results, like moving into objects. 🎯Finally,they fuse all generated views into a unified 3D representation via 3D Gaussian Splatting optimization. 🎯Compared to prior approaches, WorldExplorer produces high-quality scenes that remain stable under large camera motion, enabling for the first time realistic and unrestricted exploration. 🎯They believe this marks a significant step toward generating immersive and truly explorable virtual 3D environments. 🏢Organization: TU München 🧙Paper Authors: Manuel-Andreas Schneider, Lukas Höllein , Matthias Niessner 📝 Read the Full Paper here: 🗂️ Project Page: 🧑‍💻 Code: 🎥 Be sure to watch the attached Technical Summary Video - Sound on 🔊🔊 Find this Valuable 💎 ? ♻️QT and teach your network something new Follow me 👣, naveen manwani , for the latest updates on Tech and AI-related news, insightful research papers, and exciting announcements. #SIGGRAPHAsia2025

naveen manwani

10,578 views • 10 months ago

Jensen Huang just reframed the entire history of computing in two minutes. The argument is deceptively simple, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Every single piece of software ever built, every app, every website, every search engine, every platform operated on exactly the same fundamental principle. Someone creates content, it gets stored somewhere and when you ask for it, the system retrieves it. Google indexes the web and retrieves the right page, YouTube encodes your video and retrieves it when someone clicks, Amazon photographs every product in its catalog and retrieves the listing that matches your search. Every recommender system, every ad platform, every social feed, all of it, without exception, is a retrieval operation dressed up in a user interface and we called it the Information Age. But strip away the branding and what you had, for 30 consecutive years, was an extraordinarily sophisticated filing cabinet. The smartest engineers in the world spent their careers optimizing how fast you could put things in and pull things out. Generative AI doesn't just improve that system but rather replaces the entire premise of it. Instead of retrieving content that was pre-recorded by someone else, AI generates it from scratch, in real time, calibrated to your exact context, your specific intent, the precise ground truth of that moment. The same question asked twice gets two different answers, both tailored to what the system knows about you right now. There is no file being pulled or a pre-recorded version, the content is being synthesized on the fly from a compressed model of human knowledge, shaped to fit exactly what you need. The implications of this for the companies that built the retrieval era are profound and already starting to show. Google's click-through rates on organic search results have dropped 61% since AI Overviews rolled out, because users are getting answers directly instead of clicking through to files. Gartner projects traditional search engine query volume drops 25% by the end of 2026 as users migrate to generative interfaces. And yet this is exactly what Jensen predicted, in the old world, the computing bottleneck was storage and retrieval, you needed hard drives, bandwidth, and CDNs. In the new world, the bottleneck is computation, you need the raw processing power to generate tokens at scale, millions of times per second, for millions of simultaneous users. Inference computing demand has grown roughly ten thousand times in the last two years alone. That shift is precisely why Nvidia's revenue opportunity forecast just jumped from $500 billion through 2026 to $1 trillion through 2027. The retrieval era needed CPUs and storage and the generative era needs GPUs, token factories, and inference infrastructure at a scale never built before and Nvidia builds the engine underneath all of it. Jensen has been making this argument since 2024. Most people wrote it off as a chip salesman talking his book but two years later, it's the architecture of the entire industry.
1:54

Jensen Huang just reframed the entire history of computing in two minutes. The argument is deceptively simple, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Every single piece of software ever built, every app, every website, every search engine, every platform operated on exactly the same fundamental principle. Someone creates content, it gets stored somewhere and when you ask for it, the system retrieves it. Google indexes the web and retrieves the right page, YouTube encodes your video and retrieves it when someone clicks, Amazon photographs every product in its catalog and retrieves the listing that matches your search. Every recommender system, every ad platform, every social feed, all of it, without exception, is a retrieval operation dressed up in a user interface and we called it the Information Age. But strip away the branding and what you had, for 30 consecutive years, was an extraordinarily sophisticated filing cabinet. The smartest engineers in the world spent their careers optimizing how fast you could put things in and pull things out. Generative AI doesn't just improve that system but rather replaces the entire premise of it. Instead of retrieving content that was pre-recorded by someone else, AI generates it from scratch, in real time, calibrated to your exact context, your specific intent, the precise ground truth of that moment. The same question asked twice gets two different answers, both tailored to what the system knows about you right now. There is no file being pulled or a pre-recorded version, the content is being synthesized on the fly from a compressed model of human knowledge, shaped to fit exactly what you need. The implications of this for the companies that built the retrieval era are profound and already starting to show. Google's click-through rates on organic search results have dropped 61% since AI Overviews rolled out, because users are getting answers directly instead of clicking through to files. Gartner projects traditional search engine query volume drops 25% by the end of 2026 as users migrate to generative interfaces. And yet this is exactly what Jensen predicted, in the old world, the computing bottleneck was storage and retrieval, you needed hard drives, bandwidth, and CDNs. In the new world, the bottleneck is computation, you need the raw processing power to generate tokens at scale, millions of times per second, for millions of simultaneous users. Inference computing demand has grown roughly ten thousand times in the last two years alone. That shift is precisely why Nvidia's revenue opportunity forecast just jumped from $500 billion through 2026 to $1 trillion through 2027. The retrieval era needed CPUs and storage and the generative era needs GPUs, token factories, and inference infrastructure at a scale never built before and Nvidia builds the engine underneath all of it. Jensen has been making this argument since 2024. Most people wrote it off as a chip salesman talking his book but two years later, it's the architecture of the entire industry.

Milk Road AI

17,890 views • 2 months ago

Thermodynamic computing is here There is a new computing paradigm emerging from the noise, and its arrival may be as significant as the dawn of deep learning or the advent of cloud virtualization. A new company, Extropic, has just launched its first thermodynamic computer, a device they call a TSU, or Thermal Sampling Unit. While the web is already filling with deep technical dives, what’s more important for most of us is building a clear intuition for what this technology is, how it’s fundamentally different from anything that’s come before, and why it’s generating so much excitement. This isn’t just another chip; it’s a new way to think about computation itself. Seeing is Believing: Solving Puzzles in One Shot To understand what a TSU does, let’s look at two classic, notoriously difficult computer science problems: Sudoku and the Eight Queens problem. When you or I solve a Sudoku, we use a process of sequential logic, guess-and-check, and backtracking. We make an assumption, follow its logical conclusion, and if we hit a dead end, we erase and try again. A classical computer does the same, just much faster. A TSU, however, approaches this in a completely different way. Using a TSU simulator, one can “program” the problem by first clamping the known values—the clues already on the board. Then, you program in the constraints: no duplicate numbers in any row, column, or 3x3 square. With the problem thus defined, the TSU doesn’t “search” for a solution; it anneals one. In a single computational step, the solution simply emerges, backfilling all the empty squares correctly. The same principle applies to the Eight Queens problem, a challenge to place eight queens on a chessboard so that none can attack any other. This is a complex combinatorial problem with 92 distinct solutions. A classical computer would have to iteratively search for these. A TSU, by contrast, can be programmed with the constraints (the “anti-affinity” between queens on the same row, column, or diagonal) and then set to sample the “solution space.” In this context, a valid solution is one with a “problem energy” of zero. The TSU’s physical nature allows it to naturally find these zero-energy states. A simulation of this process shows the TSU discovering all 92 unique solutions, demonstrating its ability to not just find an answer, but to explore the entire landscape of all correct answers. This is a fundamentally new approach, one that bypasses the brute-force, iterative methods we’ve relied on for decades. The Physics of Computation: Using Noise, Not Fighting It This new power comes from a radical design philosophy. For the last 70 years, computing has been about one thing: order. We build chips that are deterministic, logical, and precise. The great enemy has always been noise, heat, and randomness. We spend billions on cooling and error correction to eliminate these very things. Quantum computing, in many ways, is the ultimate expression of this, requiring temperatures near absolute zero to eliminate all thermal noise and achieve quantum coherence. Thermodynamic computing is the polar opposite. It doesn’t fight the noise; it uses it. The TSU is built on the understanding that the natural, stochastic noise from “leaky” transistors—the very randomness we’ve tried to engineer out of existence—is itself a powerful computational resource. Think of it this way: a GPU, which is central to today’s AI, has to simulate noise. When a generative AI model creates a new image or sentence, it’s using complex algorithms to fake randomness. The TSU doesn’t need to fake it; it harnesses the actual physical randomness of thermodynamics. It is a piece of hardware that directly computes with probability. This makes it a hybrid, sitting somewhere between a purely analog computer (which might use light or sound waves to compute) and a digital GPU. It’s a physical device that leverages the laws of physics itself to find solutions, rather than just using logic gates to simulate them. From a Lost Hiker to a Million Bouncy Balls Perhaps the best way to build intuition is with a metaphor. Imagine that solving a complex optimization problem is like trying to find the lowest point of altitude in a 100-square-mile mountainous landscape. Classical computing, using an algorithm like gradient descent, is like being a single hiker dropped into this landscape at night. You have no map or satellite view. All you have is an altimeter and the sensation of the slope under your feet. You can only take one step at a time, always walking downhill, hoping you don’t get stuck in a small local valley when the true, lowest canyon is miles away. Thermodynamic computing is a completely different approach. It’s like having a million bouncy balls and a helicopter. You drop all million balls simultaneously across the entire 100-square-mile landscape. Then, you “turn on an earthquake,” shaking the entire system. The balls bounce and jostle, but as the shaking (the “annealing”) subsides, where do they all end up? They naturally settle into the lowest points. The balls that collect in the deepest valley represent the optimal solution. The TSU is, in essence, a physical device for dropping those million balls at once and letting the laws of thermodynamics find the lowest “energy” state for you, all at the same time. Beyond Puzzles: The Real-World Impact This is far more than just a clever way to solve brain teasers. This ability to instantly find the lowest energy state for a complex, constrained system has staggering real-world applications. One of the most immediate is protein folding. Companies like Google’s DeepMind have made incredible progress with AI like AlphaFold, which predicts protein structures. But this is still a predictive model trained on existing data. A TSU could potentially solve the folding problem directly, treating the protein as a system of atomic affinities and repulsions and finding its most stable, lowest-energy configuration almost instantaneously. This could revolutionize drug discovery and materials science. An even more profound possibility lies in nuclear fusion. One of the greatest engineering challenges in history is controlling the superheated plasma within a tokamak reactor. This requires shaping unimaginably complex magnetic containment fields in real-time to prevent the plasma from touching the reactor walls. This is a real-time optimization problem so complex it’s currently beyond our capabilities. A TSU, however, could be fast enough. Its ability to compute with electricity itself, rather than abstracting the problem through layers of software, might allow it to update the magnetic fields fast enough to stabilize the fusion reaction. One could even imagine a future where thermodynamic computing elements are built directly into the tokamak’s walls, allowing the reactor to physically and intelligently react to the plasma’s state in real time. A ‘GPT-2 Moment’ for a New Era It’s easy to become numb to hype, but what we are witnessing with the TSU feels different. This is what you might call a “GPT-2 moment.” For those who were there, GPT-2 was the first generative AI model that wasn’t just a toy; it was the first time you could play with it at home and see the spark of true generative intelligence. It was the precursor that pointed directly to the GPT-3 and ChatGPT revolution that has since changed the world. This TSU has that same feel. It’s the “SDK” for a new computing paradigm. This technology is as different from classical computing as quantum computing is, but with a critical difference: a team of 15 built this in two years, and it runs at room temperature on your desk. Quantum computing has seen decades of work and billions in funding, and it still hasn’t produced a commercially viable, scalable machine. The TSU is here now. Based on a two-decade-long career at the cutting edge of technology—from seeing the obvious future of virtualization in 2007 to an early conviction in deep learning and GPT—this has all the same hallmarks of a fundamental, world-changing shift. We are not just building faster calculators; we are learning to compute with the universe itself. Pay close attention to this. This is the next big thing.
18:01

Thermodynamic computing is here There is a new computing paradigm emerging from the noise, and its arrival may be as significant as the dawn of deep learning or the advent of cloud virtualization. A new company, Extropic, has just launched its first thermodynamic computer, a device they call a TSU, or Thermal Sampling Unit. While the web is already filling with deep technical dives, what’s more important for most of us is building a clear intuition for what this technology is, how it’s fundamentally different from anything that’s come before, and why it’s generating so much excitement. This isn’t just another chip; it’s a new way to think about computation itself. Seeing is Believing: Solving Puzzles in One Shot To understand what a TSU does, let’s look at two classic, notoriously difficult computer science problems: Sudoku and the Eight Queens problem. When you or I solve a Sudoku, we use a process of sequential logic, guess-and-check, and backtracking. We make an assumption, follow its logical conclusion, and if we hit a dead end, we erase and try again. A classical computer does the same, just much faster. A TSU, however, approaches this in a completely different way. Using a TSU simulator, one can “program” the problem by first clamping the known values—the clues already on the board. Then, you program in the constraints: no duplicate numbers in any row, column, or 3x3 square. With the problem thus defined, the TSU doesn’t “search” for a solution; it anneals one. In a single computational step, the solution simply emerges, backfilling all the empty squares correctly. The same principle applies to the Eight Queens problem, a challenge to place eight queens on a chessboard so that none can attack any other. This is a complex combinatorial problem with 92 distinct solutions. A classical computer would have to iteratively search for these. A TSU, by contrast, can be programmed with the constraints (the “anti-affinity” between queens on the same row, column, or diagonal) and then set to sample the “solution space.” In this context, a valid solution is one with a “problem energy” of zero. The TSU’s physical nature allows it to naturally find these zero-energy states. A simulation of this process shows the TSU discovering all 92 unique solutions, demonstrating its ability to not just find an answer, but to explore the entire landscape of all correct answers. This is a fundamentally new approach, one that bypasses the brute-force, iterative methods we’ve relied on for decades. The Physics of Computation: Using Noise, Not Fighting It This new power comes from a radical design philosophy. For the last 70 years, computing has been about one thing: order. We build chips that are deterministic, logical, and precise. The great enemy has always been noise, heat, and randomness. We spend billions on cooling and error correction to eliminate these very things. Quantum computing, in many ways, is the ultimate expression of this, requiring temperatures near absolute zero to eliminate all thermal noise and achieve quantum coherence. Thermodynamic computing is the polar opposite. It doesn’t fight the noise; it uses it. The TSU is built on the understanding that the natural, stochastic noise from “leaky” transistors—the very randomness we’ve tried to engineer out of existence—is itself a powerful computational resource. Think of it this way: a GPU, which is central to today’s AI, has to simulate noise. When a generative AI model creates a new image or sentence, it’s using complex algorithms to fake randomness. The TSU doesn’t need to fake it; it harnesses the actual physical randomness of thermodynamics. It is a piece of hardware that directly computes with probability. This makes it a hybrid, sitting somewhere between a purely analog computer (which might use light or sound waves to compute) and a digital GPU. It’s a physical device that leverages the laws of physics itself to find solutions, rather than just using logic gates to simulate them. From a Lost Hiker to a Million Bouncy Balls Perhaps the best way to build intuition is with a metaphor. Imagine that solving a complex optimization problem is like trying to find the lowest point of altitude in a 100-square-mile mountainous landscape. Classical computing, using an algorithm like gradient descent, is like being a single hiker dropped into this landscape at night. You have no map or satellite view. All you have is an altimeter and the sensation of the slope under your feet. You can only take one step at a time, always walking downhill, hoping you don’t get stuck in a small local valley when the true, lowest canyon is miles away. Thermodynamic computing is a completely different approach. It’s like having a million bouncy balls and a helicopter. You drop all million balls simultaneously across the entire 100-square-mile landscape. Then, you “turn on an earthquake,” shaking the entire system. The balls bounce and jostle, but as the shaking (the “annealing”) subsides, where do they all end up? They naturally settle into the lowest points. The balls that collect in the deepest valley represent the optimal solution. The TSU is, in essence, a physical device for dropping those million balls at once and letting the laws of thermodynamics find the lowest “energy” state for you, all at the same time. Beyond Puzzles: The Real-World Impact This is far more than just a clever way to solve brain teasers. This ability to instantly find the lowest energy state for a complex, constrained system has staggering real-world applications. One of the most immediate is protein folding. Companies like Google’s DeepMind have made incredible progress with AI like AlphaFold, which predicts protein structures. But this is still a predictive model trained on existing data. A TSU could potentially solve the folding problem directly, treating the protein as a system of atomic affinities and repulsions and finding its most stable, lowest-energy configuration almost instantaneously. This could revolutionize drug discovery and materials science. An even more profound possibility lies in nuclear fusion. One of the greatest engineering challenges in history is controlling the superheated plasma within a tokamak reactor. This requires shaping unimaginably complex magnetic containment fields in real-time to prevent the plasma from touching the reactor walls. This is a real-time optimization problem so complex it’s currently beyond our capabilities. A TSU, however, could be fast enough. Its ability to compute with electricity itself, rather than abstracting the problem through layers of software, might allow it to update the magnetic fields fast enough to stabilize the fusion reaction. One could even imagine a future where thermodynamic computing elements are built directly into the tokamak’s walls, allowing the reactor to physically and intelligently react to the plasma’s state in real time. A ‘GPT-2 Moment’ for a New Era It’s easy to become numb to hype, but what we are witnessing with the TSU feels different. This is what you might call a “GPT-2 moment.” For those who were there, GPT-2 was the first generative AI model that wasn’t just a toy; it was the first time you could play with it at home and see the spark of true generative intelligence. It was the precursor that pointed directly to the GPT-3 and ChatGPT revolution that has since changed the world. This TSU has that same feel. It’s the “SDK” for a new computing paradigm. This technology is as different from classical computing as quantum computing is, but with a critical difference: a team of 15 built this in two years, and it runs at room temperature on your desk. Quantum computing has seen decades of work and billions in funding, and it still hasn’t produced a commercially viable, scalable machine. The TSU is here now. Based on a two-decade-long career at the cutting edge of technology—from seeing the obvious future of virtualization in 2007 to an early conviction in deep learning and GPT—this has all the same hallmarks of a fundamental, world-changing shift. We are not just building faster calculators; we are learning to compute with the universe itself. Pay close attention to this. This is the next big thing.

David Shapiro (L/0)

83,649 views • 8 months ago

Over the past two years, AI video models have been competing on realism, resolution, and duration. But no matter how impressive the results look, we remain passive viewers: we press play, watch the clip, and it ends. AlayaWorld Alaya Lab is attempting something fundamentally different. Instead of generating a fixed video, it generates a world that continues to unfold as you move through it. These three demos show the same journey toward a green village rendered in three distinct styles: photorealistic, oil painting, and line art. As the camera moves forward, the model continues generating the road, fences, trees, and distant village. This is not simply an existing video with different filters applied. The environment is generated continuously along the camera trajectory, allowing the scene to develop as the user explores it. AlayaWorld streams video at 720p and 24 FPS while supporting camera movement and viewpoint control. The real breakthrough is not just image quality. Once generation becomes fast enough to respond within an interactive loop, the user is no longer merely watching a video. They become a participant inside the generated world. The world can also respond to new instructions. During generation, users can introduce prompts that trigger spells, summon characters, create explosions, or transform the environment. Most video models follow an initial prompt and produce a predetermined clip. AlayaWorld can respond to changing intent while the world is still running, allowing subsequent events to evolve according to the user’s commands. Generating an attractive frame is relatively easy. Maintaining a coherent world over time is much harder. As a video model repeatedly predicts the next frame, small errors can accumulate until roads, buildings, and objects begin to distort or disappear. AlayaWorld combines spatial memory with compressed historical context, helping the model remember both where things are and what has already happened. This enables stable generation lasting more than one minute while improving consistency when the camera leaves an area and later returns. This may be the next step for AI video: not simply generating a longer movie, but generating a world that can be explored, changed, and interacted with. AlayaWorld is developed by Alaya Lab. The team is progressively releasing its inference code, training code, and datasets, with an online experience expected to launch near the end of the month. Project page:
0:20

Over the past two years, AI video models have been competing on realism, resolution, and duration. But no matter how impressive the results look, we remain passive viewers: we press play, watch the clip, and it ends. AlayaWorld Alaya Lab is attempting something fundamentally different. Instead of generating a fixed video, it generates a world that continues to unfold as you move through it. These three demos show the same journey toward a green village rendered in three distinct styles: photorealistic, oil painting, and line art. As the camera moves forward, the model continues generating the road, fences, trees, and distant village. This is not simply an existing video with different filters applied. The environment is generated continuously along the camera trajectory, allowing the scene to develop as the user explores it. AlayaWorld streams video at 720p and 24 FPS while supporting camera movement and viewpoint control. The real breakthrough is not just image quality. Once generation becomes fast enough to respond within an interactive loop, the user is no longer merely watching a video. They become a participant inside the generated world. The world can also respond to new instructions. During generation, users can introduce prompts that trigger spells, summon characters, create explosions, or transform the environment. Most video models follow an initial prompt and produce a predetermined clip. AlayaWorld can respond to changing intent while the world is still running, allowing subsequent events to evolve according to the user’s commands. Generating an attractive frame is relatively easy. Maintaining a coherent world over time is much harder. As a video model repeatedly predicts the next frame, small errors can accumulate until roads, buildings, and objects begin to distort or disappear. AlayaWorld combines spatial memory with compressed historical context, helping the model remember both where things are and what has already happened. This enables stable generation lasting more than one minute while improving consistency when the camera leaves an area and later returns. This may be the next step for AI video: not simply generating a longer movie, but generating a world that can be explored, changed, and interacted with. AlayaWorld is developed by Alaya Lab. The team is progressively releasing its inference code, training code, and datasets, with an online experience expected to launch near the end of the month. Project page:

Rachel🥥

76,260 views • 8 days ago

A banana in January in New York floods your mitochondria with deuterium. Your body has no tools to handle it. Dr. Laszlo Boros — former professor of pediatrics at the UCLA School of Medicine & pioneer of deutonomics — explains why seasonal & local eating isn't just a dietary preference. It's a fundamental requirement for mitochondrial function. Three independent mechanisms explain why. 1) Sunlight and photon pressure: Tropical fruits are naturally high in deuterium — the heavy isotope of hydrogen that causes ATP synthase nanomotors inside your mitochondria to stutter and break. In equatorial regions, high-intensity red and infrared sunlight penetrates the body and decreases the viscosity of water inside mitochondria — allowing the nanomotors to keep spinning despite the deuterium load. Eat that same banana in a dark New York winter — without the corresponding sunlight — and your mitochondria receive the heavy fuel without the light needed to process it. The nanomotors stall. 2) Microbiome desynchronization: Your gut microbiome is your primary deuterium filter. Here's the mechanism most people miss: Bacteria actively collect deuterium to fuel their own division. They run their nanomotors in reverse — pumping clean protons out while trapping heavy deuterons inside their cells. As they ferment your food, they strip out the deuterium and release deuterium-depleted metabolites — short-chain fatty acids and ketone bodies — back into your gut for clean energy production. The trapped deuterium gets excreted in your stool. But this filtering mechanism only works when your microbiome is adapted to the food you're eating. Bacteria are highly specialized. They only efficiently metabolize a narrow range of substrates. When you eat a consistent local diet — your microbiome develops a stable tailored population that knows exactly how to extract deuterium from those specific local foods. When you introduce an imported tropical fruit in winter — your gut bacteria are caught off guard. They haven't adapted to this foreign substrate. They can't ferment it efficiently. They can't trap the deuterium fast enough. It slips past the gut's mucosal barrier directly into your circulation — and into your mitochondria. 3) Nanomotor stutter and metabolic crowding: Inside your mitochondria are ATP synthase nanomotors — spinning at up to ~9,000 rotations per minute to pump protons and produce energy. A deuteron is twice as large and twice as heavy as a normal proton. When it enters these fast-spinning motors — it acts like a medicine ball thrown into a precision engine. It becomes stuck. The nanomotors stutter and break. The consequence is metabolic crowding. With the motors destroyed, protons can no longer return to the mitochondrial matrix to mix with oxygen and form metabolic water. Complete biological combustion stops. Just like an engine choked with fuel but lacking a working exhaust — your mitochondria can no longer fully burn incoming carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into their natural end products of carbon dioxide and water. The unburned fuel backs up and piles up inside your cells. Your body stores it as visceral fat, excessive glycogen, or abnormal proteins. This is metabolic crowding. And it is the biochemical root of obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Boros: "When you walk into a department store and you see those shiny apples and watermelons from wherever they're from — it's really not your food. First of all, it doesn't grow there, especially not in that season. And when you eat it, you don't have the light exposure, the oxygen partial pressure, and you name it." Eating locally and seasonally isn't a wellness trend. It's what your mitochondria were built for.
1:59

A banana in January in New York floods your mitochondria with deuterium. Your body has no tools to handle it. Dr. Laszlo Boros — former professor of pediatrics at the UCLA School of Medicine & pioneer of deutonomics — explains why seasonal & local eating isn't just a dietary preference. It's a fundamental requirement for mitochondrial function. Three independent mechanisms explain why. 1) Sunlight and photon pressure: Tropical fruits are naturally high in deuterium — the heavy isotope of hydrogen that causes ATP synthase nanomotors inside your mitochondria to stutter and break. In equatorial regions, high-intensity red and infrared sunlight penetrates the body and decreases the viscosity of water inside mitochondria — allowing the nanomotors to keep spinning despite the deuterium load. Eat that same banana in a dark New York winter — without the corresponding sunlight — and your mitochondria receive the heavy fuel without the light needed to process it. The nanomotors stall. 2) Microbiome desynchronization: Your gut microbiome is your primary deuterium filter. Here's the mechanism most people miss: Bacteria actively collect deuterium to fuel their own division. They run their nanomotors in reverse — pumping clean protons out while trapping heavy deuterons inside their cells. As they ferment your food, they strip out the deuterium and release deuterium-depleted metabolites — short-chain fatty acids and ketone bodies — back into your gut for clean energy production. The trapped deuterium gets excreted in your stool. But this filtering mechanism only works when your microbiome is adapted to the food you're eating. Bacteria are highly specialized. They only efficiently metabolize a narrow range of substrates. When you eat a consistent local diet — your microbiome develops a stable tailored population that knows exactly how to extract deuterium from those specific local foods. When you introduce an imported tropical fruit in winter — your gut bacteria are caught off guard. They haven't adapted to this foreign substrate. They can't ferment it efficiently. They can't trap the deuterium fast enough. It slips past the gut's mucosal barrier directly into your circulation — and into your mitochondria. 3) Nanomotor stutter and metabolic crowding: Inside your mitochondria are ATP synthase nanomotors — spinning at up to ~9,000 rotations per minute to pump protons and produce energy. A deuteron is twice as large and twice as heavy as a normal proton. When it enters these fast-spinning motors — it acts like a medicine ball thrown into a precision engine. It becomes stuck. The nanomotors stutter and break. The consequence is metabolic crowding. With the motors destroyed, protons can no longer return to the mitochondrial matrix to mix with oxygen and form metabolic water. Complete biological combustion stops. Just like an engine choked with fuel but lacking a working exhaust — your mitochondria can no longer fully burn incoming carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into their natural end products of carbon dioxide and water. The unburned fuel backs up and piles up inside your cells. Your body stores it as visceral fat, excessive glycogen, or abnormal proteins. This is metabolic crowding. And it is the biochemical root of obesity, diabetes, and cancer. Boros: "When you walk into a department store and you see those shiny apples and watermelons from wherever they're from — it's really not your food. First of all, it doesn't grow there, especially not in that season. And when you eat it, you don't have the light exposure, the oxygen partial pressure, and you name it." Eating locally and seasonally isn't a wellness trend. It's what your mitochondria were built for.

no.mind

117,144 views • 1 month ago

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End
15:57

History is made: Fine structure mystery solved? /🧵 UPDATE: My model may have solved an outstanding question in physics: the origin of the fine structure constant. I found a robust source and it works even with some tuning within -3% to 7% over a massive range of non-linear fields. What is the fine structure constant? Watch the video below and you'll find out. Essentially its a mysterious constant that occurs in atomic and subatomic physics that has no unit. Countless people have tried to find a reason for it, and most have turned to numerology. I did something that only could work in this age of LLMs and someone who is a motivated expert in the field. Did a massive paper search, found the material in 10 minutes, aligned everything, then had it double check for me. Note that I wasn't looking for it. It occurred to me by accident when I was developing my bilinear principle of electromagnetic interaction. Within an hour, I had a value for it. My idea was simple: apply my non-linear soliton model to the electron in a way that makes my current x current interaction make sense not just at the atomic level but the subatomic level. Look at E = mc^2. It's the same as E = (sqrt(m) c)(sqrt(m) c). If sqrt(m) could be scaled to a charge, then you could interpret it as two scaled currents multiplying against each other. This is almost identical to the equation for the energy contained within an inductor L with a current I running through it: E = 0.5 L I^2. So far, sketchy right? Here's the thing, vortexes are solitons and they can exist in superfluids -- they even have quantised "Noether charge". They acquire a mass from their vorticity, have an energy associated with them and can move at any speed inside the medium with a different speed. Exactly like electrons! So my idea was to map the electron exactly to these vortices. If I could predict the mass of the electron, I could actually finally connect mass to electromagentism properly (Planck's argument is elegant but indirect). I used dimensional analysis to do this. It took a few tries to get it right and I had it checked by 10 different instances of the highest powered LLMs. With this first order approximation I got within 1/4th of the mass. It was almost exactly 1/4th... so I realised, I had to use a double cover to make it like SU(2). After another half an hour of research, I felt confident in using something like Dirac's scissor to do it. A kind of knot within the electron. It got me within 1.2% of the mass of the electron... but there was a problem, the mass of the electron occurred on the other side of the equation. I cringed at myself. Such an amateur mistake, I thought. But the LLM (Opus 4.5) actually corrected me and told me I had just accidentally derived the fine structure constant. Why? Because the mass terms cancelled out, or if one prefers, leave behind a correction ratio. Set that correction ratio and you get a function that implicitly defines the fine structure constant through two "parameters": 1. The actual geometry of the soliton/vortex. 2. The non-linearity of the medium and how it changed the vortex core. I went back and found an equation from friggin' Lord Kelvin, derived in the Victorian era. I then found an analysis from 1970 on the Non-linear Schrodinger Equation (NLSE) applied to exactly this domain but for a larger scale soliton in superfluids -- it didn't matter though because a superfluid and the medium of space are scale free as I had proven in the superconduction part of my paper. In any case plugging these two approximation in got me within 1.2% of the fine structure constant by solving the following implicit equation: 1 = 8 * pi * alpha (Log_e(8/alpha) - alpha_core) Where alpha_core is 1.615 in the NLSE. The most incredible thing? It was a ROBUST value for thin ring vortices. Even if you adjusted the alpha_core from 1.5-2, the values for the fine structure constant only changed between -3% to +7%. I cannot emphasise how incredible this result is -- it means that the actual non-linear equation and the other candidate geometries that reproduce SU(2) can actually get the exact value of the fine structure constant. I don't know of anyone who even approached this problem in this way without making ansatz or postulates. I'm still checking through the math in disbelief. If it's wrong it's going to be beautifully wrong. All LLMs I've ran it through agree with the math, just not the foundations which is expected due to their QED bias. This will be in chapter 11 of my paper. I've already sketched out the full derivation. This SIGNIFICANTLY strengthens an already game changing paper. I promise it'll be the last discovery I include and thank you for your patience. I wrote this full update out because of the significance of this development. Details will be in the paper, even if there was a mistake (it'll be shuffled on its own into the appendix -- but I really hope it all checks out). 💝🥰 /End

Korobochka (コロボ) 🇦🇺✝️

45,023 views • 7 months ago

RUN RABBIT RUN 🐇 – VEO3 CHEAT SHEET – Part I ( 🔈Sound on) So, I’ve been more extensively testing Veo3 over the past few weeks, and I wanted to see how much dynamism I could get from the new model and how I could use motion and placement to consistently tell a story while changing universes each time. Now, my findings: 1/ First, it does feel more like a Veo2.5 than a full leap. But it’s a meaningful step forward, especially in motion and complexity. Maybe I'm a little jaded, but I expect new versions of models to be strong departures from the previous one. Veo2 was already great, this one feels like an evolution, not a revolution. 2/ My Veo2 Cheat Sheet still mostly apply for Veo3: For example, I still prompt the most important elements first (often style). Just as a reminder: 3/ It's pretty good at filling the gaps when you're writing simple prompts. For cool, out-of-the-box results, just describe short scenes, but be careful with consistency. Weird tradeoff, I guess. 4/ The token window is a LOT longer, so you can get more complex, multi-step actions from your prompt. Veo2 would often lose the thread, Veo3 can keep up with sequential and layered instructions. That’s a win. 5/ Camera motion is much better. Handheld, tracking, wide-angle moves, it holds together well. Still lacks control, but it’s a clear jump from Veo2. Definitely worth noting, especially given how many people have been experimenting with Higgsfield lately. 6/ Like Veo2, POV and fantasy prompts seem to lean into a game engine vibe. Not quite realism — more like stylized cutscenes or in-game shots. Sometimes it works, sometimes it’s distracting. 7/ Aspect ratio tip (thanks Kyle Salazar): want to reduce the black bars? Add “aspect ratio 1.85:1” at the start of your prompt. Haven’t tested it yet, but apparently it helps. -8/ You can generate 360° videos. Try “360 video,” “monoscopic,” or “equirectangular.” Not flawless (some seams), but it works surprisingly well. See my previous post for this. 9/ Prompting for aesthetics is still hit-or-miss. Consistency is tough. You can over-describe your characters and key elements to keep them stable throughout, but for style...especially animation, it’s still hard to maintain. Hopefully "ingredients" or style-locking features will help in the near future. 10/ Bodies and turning movements are still tricky. Fast actions still distort limbs, creates artifacts, etc... Most shot are fine, but if you push too much for extremely dynamic scenes, you'll definitely notice some distortions (some in this video too) - What’s still missing (but probably coming): – Image-to-video – Start/end frame control – Locking a voice to a character – Prompt ingredients or persistent visual logic This is just Part I :) I’ll keep posting notes as I go.
0:56

RUN RABBIT RUN 🐇 – VEO3 CHEAT SHEET – Part I ( 🔈Sound on) So, I’ve been more extensively testing Veo3 over the past few weeks, and I wanted to see how much dynamism I could get from the new model and how I could use motion and placement to consistently tell a story while changing universes each time. Now, my findings: 1/ First, it does feel more like a Veo2.5 than a full leap. But it’s a meaningful step forward, especially in motion and complexity. Maybe I'm a little jaded, but I expect new versions of models to be strong departures from the previous one. Veo2 was already great, this one feels like an evolution, not a revolution. 2/ My Veo2 Cheat Sheet still mostly apply for Veo3: For example, I still prompt the most important elements first (often style). Just as a reminder: 3/ It's pretty good at filling the gaps when you're writing simple prompts. For cool, out-of-the-box results, just describe short scenes, but be careful with consistency. Weird tradeoff, I guess. 4/ The token window is a LOT longer, so you can get more complex, multi-step actions from your prompt. Veo2 would often lose the thread, Veo3 can keep up with sequential and layered instructions. That’s a win. 5/ Camera motion is much better. Handheld, tracking, wide-angle moves, it holds together well. Still lacks control, but it’s a clear jump from Veo2. Definitely worth noting, especially given how many people have been experimenting with Higgsfield lately. 6/ Like Veo2, POV and fantasy prompts seem to lean into a game engine vibe. Not quite realism — more like stylized cutscenes or in-game shots. Sometimes it works, sometimes it’s distracting. 7/ Aspect ratio tip (thanks Kyle Salazar): want to reduce the black bars? Add “aspect ratio 1.85:1” at the start of your prompt. Haven’t tested it yet, but apparently it helps. -8/ You can generate 360° videos. Try “360 video,” “monoscopic,” or “equirectangular.” Not flawless (some seams), but it works surprisingly well. See my previous post for this. 9/ Prompting for aesthetics is still hit-or-miss. Consistency is tough. You can over-describe your characters and key elements to keep them stable throughout, but for style...especially animation, it’s still hard to maintain. Hopefully "ingredients" or style-locking features will help in the near future. 10/ Bodies and turning movements are still tricky. Fast actions still distort limbs, creates artifacts, etc... Most shot are fine, but if you push too much for extremely dynamic scenes, you'll definitely notice some distortions (some in this video too) - What’s still missing (but probably coming): – Image-to-video – Start/end frame control – Locking a voice to a character – Prompt ingredients or persistent visual logic This is just Part I :) I’ll keep posting notes as I go.

Henry Daubrez 🌸💀

14,683 views • 1 year ago

Westerners Flocking to Play Stunning New Chinese Video Game—and Skipping ‘Spyware’ Warnings . CHINESE DESIGNERS JUST LAUNCHED another video game which is a hit worldwide. Where Winds Meet has some spectacular battle scenes on screen -- but the conflicts off-stage (west-east culture wars, psyops, business battles) are just as interesting. People in the game industry in the west are concerned—for several good reasons. Before we get there, take 20 seconds to check out the great-looking visuals, which come from the same studio that created Black Myth Wukong, a globally popular game launched in August 2024, based on the story of the Monkey King. Where Winds Meet also celebrates classic Chinese culture. It is set in the city of Kaifeng in 10th century China – and is filled with gorgeous images of that place. . CULTURAL DEPTH It has cultural depth, too. For example, everyone knows fireworks are an ancient Chinese art, but the game features molten metal spark showers, a popular art form pretty unknown outside China. In one scene you can see the flying apsaras, those Indian-influenced airborne women whose images adorn the ancient Dunhuang Caves on the silk road. Where Winds Meet is already among the favorites on Steam, the world’s biggest online game center. It includes many battles, of course. But there are related conflicts off line, in real life, too. . NUMBER ONE: CULTURE WARS. In many games released in the west, it is considered wrong to give players the choice of having a male or female character, because it implies there are just two sexes, which is a big no-no in the west. In Where the Winds Meet, players who opt for English language follow the western model, and are given the choice of Body Type I or Body Type II, no mention of forbidden words “male” and “female”. But players who opt for the Chinese version are given the choice of male or female. Trying to keep everyone happy! . NUMBER 2. HYBRID WARS, OR PSYOPS. From the moment the game came out, mysterious persons “revealed” that the game was made by Chinese people so it was a security threat, riddled with spyware. You can imagine them thinking that their gameplay information was being transmitted straight to Xi Jinping’s office! “Hmm. This incel sitting in a basement in his mother’s house prefers body type 2! Write that down, comrades.” But here’s the twist. Everybody ignored the warnings. By the end of the first day, people had played the game two million times, and that’s just the new version, the non-Chinese one. . NUMBER THREE: THE BUSINESS BATTLE The US groups which normally dominate the field, like Ubisoft, have repeatedly reported disappointing results recently. And some of the biggest recent hits have been from outside America. Black Myth Wukong was from China’s NetEase, Expedition 33 was from France, and this new game, Where Winds Meet, is also from NetEase. A popular video game reviewer called Hypnotic lamented the poor quality of games from the west—with the players blaming the designers and the designers blaming the players. “The east ends up releasing video games that end up blowing the doors down whenever they release,” he said. “And then you end up getting developers from the west that'll make up all kinds of excuses as to why these games are successful. They'll call it slop. They'll call it Chinese spyware. They'll call it whatever they want. But at the end of the day, at least somebody is trying to put out video games that players actually want, that isn't just indie developers.” . FIELD IS OPEN Now this does NOT mean that games from the east are uniformly taking over the global game industry. The west is still putting out some great games, with Expedition 33 being a good example. What it does mean is that China is catching up fast. We’ve seen this happening in many sectors. And as long as there’s a level playing field, it ultimately means that people get more choice. . A FAIRER, SAFER WORLD But more importantly than that, it gives people around the world a different image of China. The western mainstream media tends to create an image of China as an evil tech dystopia, sometimes literally describing it as a giant gulag. Games like this one show it to be community of creative people, producing fun products, and a place with a rich culture and an amazing history. The result, we hope, will be a fairer world – and a fairer world is a safer world.
4:57

Westerners Flocking to Play Stunning New Chinese Video Game—and Skipping ‘Spyware’ Warnings . CHINESE DESIGNERS JUST LAUNCHED another video game which is a hit worldwide. Where Winds Meet has some spectacular battle scenes on screen -- but the conflicts off-stage (west-east culture wars, psyops, business battles) are just as interesting. People in the game industry in the west are concerned—for several good reasons. Before we get there, take 20 seconds to check out the great-looking visuals, which come from the same studio that created Black Myth Wukong, a globally popular game launched in August 2024, based on the story of the Monkey King. Where Winds Meet also celebrates classic Chinese culture. It is set in the city of Kaifeng in 10th century China – and is filled with gorgeous images of that place. . CULTURAL DEPTH It has cultural depth, too. For example, everyone knows fireworks are an ancient Chinese art, but the game features molten metal spark showers, a popular art form pretty unknown outside China. In one scene you can see the flying apsaras, those Indian-influenced airborne women whose images adorn the ancient Dunhuang Caves on the silk road. Where Winds Meet is already among the favorites on Steam, the world’s biggest online game center. It includes many battles, of course. But there are related conflicts off line, in real life, too. . NUMBER ONE: CULTURE WARS. In many games released in the west, it is considered wrong to give players the choice of having a male or female character, because it implies there are just two sexes, which is a big no-no in the west. In Where the Winds Meet, players who opt for English language follow the western model, and are given the choice of Body Type I or Body Type II, no mention of forbidden words “male” and “female”. But players who opt for the Chinese version are given the choice of male or female. Trying to keep everyone happy! . NUMBER 2. HYBRID WARS, OR PSYOPS. From the moment the game came out, mysterious persons “revealed” that the game was made by Chinese people so it was a security threat, riddled with spyware. You can imagine them thinking that their gameplay information was being transmitted straight to Xi Jinping’s office! “Hmm. This incel sitting in a basement in his mother’s house prefers body type 2! Write that down, comrades.” But here’s the twist. Everybody ignored the warnings. By the end of the first day, people had played the game two million times, and that’s just the new version, the non-Chinese one. . NUMBER THREE: THE BUSINESS BATTLE The US groups which normally dominate the field, like Ubisoft, have repeatedly reported disappointing results recently. And some of the biggest recent hits have been from outside America. Black Myth Wukong was from China’s NetEase, Expedition 33 was from France, and this new game, Where Winds Meet, is also from NetEase. A popular video game reviewer called Hypnotic lamented the poor quality of games from the west—with the players blaming the designers and the designers blaming the players. “The east ends up releasing video games that end up blowing the doors down whenever they release,” he said. “And then you end up getting developers from the west that'll make up all kinds of excuses as to why these games are successful. They'll call it slop. They'll call it Chinese spyware. They'll call it whatever they want. But at the end of the day, at least somebody is trying to put out video games that players actually want, that isn't just indie developers.” . FIELD IS OPEN Now this does NOT mean that games from the east are uniformly taking over the global game industry. The west is still putting out some great games, with Expedition 33 being a good example. What it does mean is that China is catching up fast. We’ve seen this happening in many sectors. And as long as there’s a level playing field, it ultimately means that people get more choice. . A FAIRER, SAFER WORLD But more importantly than that, it gives people around the world a different image of China. The western mainstream media tends to create an image of China as an evil tech dystopia, sometimes literally describing it as a giant gulag. Games like this one show it to be community of creative people, producing fun products, and a place with a rich culture and an amazing history. The result, we hope, will be a fairer world – and a fairer world is a safer world.

Nury Vittachi

49,389 views • 7 months ago

Tiny drone hits invisible mode by twisting faster than eye can detect | Omar Kardoudi, New Atlas Engineers at Northwestern University have built a drone that vanishes without camouflage or transparent panels. Its trick is spinning so fast that your eyes simply give up trying to focus, a stealth edge that could turn surveillance into something almost invisible. The aircraft, nicknamed Phantom Twist, rotates up to 25 times per second, a rate that outpaces how quickly our visual system can process sharp detail. Instead of true invisibility, the drone dissolves into a faint, ghostly blur that blends into whatever is behind it. The work, led by associate professor Michael Rubenstein, was presented on July 16 at the Robotics: Science and Systems 2026 conference in Sydney, Australia, under the title Computational Design of a Low-Visibility UAV Using Human-Aligned Perceptual Metric. "Most efforts to hide drones focus on making them look like their surroundings," says Rubenstein. "Instead, we asked whether we could design the drone itself around the way humans perceive motion. This idea of low visibility through persistent motion is something few people have explored." That distinction matters because drones are increasingly used to watch wildlife, check aging infrastructure, or survey wetlands, but their mere presence changes the behavior of whatever they're observing. Birds scatter, animals flee, people act differently. A drone that's hard to spot could do the same job without that side effect. Prior attempts at motion-based concealment offer useful context here. The Northwestern paper points to an earlier project nicknamed the Boomerang Drone, covered in a 2006 New York Times Magazine piece, which tried a similar high-speed rotation trick but couldn't spin fast enough to fully exploit the blur effect, leaving it largely visible. The paper authors also trace the broader idea of active concealment back to the "Yehudi light," a counter-illumination project developed by the National Defense Research Committee in 1944 to hide Allied sea-search aircraft from enemy view. The Phantom Twist itself takes a very different shape from those earlier attempts. Rather than a typical quadcopter with four separate rotors, it runs on a single motor and a single propeller, with the propeller spinning one way while the rest of the drone's body spins the opposite way. "For a typical quadrotor drone, the propellers are spinning, but the robot is stationary," Rubenstein explains. "So, you still see its body. For our drone, the whole thing is rotating, so there are no stationary parts." To reach that layout, the team's computer model generated roughly 20,000 possible drone configurations capable of stable flight, then used artificial intelligence and optimization algorithms to repeatedly rearrange the motor, propeller, circuit board, counterweight, and batteries. Each design was simulated spinning mid-flight and overlaid on 100 real-world backgrounds, then scored by a perceptual model built to mimic human vision, where a lower score meant better camouflage. The 500 best-scoring designs were run through the optimizer again to squeeze out further gains before a final version was built. Emma Alexander, an assistant professor of computer science and one of the study's co-authors, explains the underlying physics. "The human eye takes time to accumulate signals, roughly analogous to the exposure time of a camera," she says. "When an object spins quickly, we perceive it as blurring out and losing distinct features. Because this new drone is almost entirely transparent, its few opaque components are visually averaged with the background for an overall appearance of a slight haze." According to the paper's visibility metric, the finished drone is about 10 times harder to spot than a standard quadcopter. But the spinning trick has real limits that make this drone far from being completely unnoticeable. The propeller still makes an audible whir that gives the drone away even when the eye can't, and its support wires and rods remain partly visible. The paper's authors suggest future versions could lean on more transparent materials and quieter propulsion, edging the drone ever closer to true – and somewhat scary – invisibility. After all, the same trick making a drone less impactful on wildlife could just as easily help it sneak around for reasons that aren't so friendly.
1:11

Tiny drone hits invisible mode by twisting faster than eye can detect | Omar Kardoudi, New Atlas Engineers at Northwestern University have built a drone that vanishes without camouflage or transparent panels. Its trick is spinning so fast that your eyes simply give up trying to focus, a stealth edge that could turn surveillance into something almost invisible. The aircraft, nicknamed Phantom Twist, rotates up to 25 times per second, a rate that outpaces how quickly our visual system can process sharp detail. Instead of true invisibility, the drone dissolves into a faint, ghostly blur that blends into whatever is behind it. The work, led by associate professor Michael Rubenstein, was presented on July 16 at the Robotics: Science and Systems 2026 conference in Sydney, Australia, under the title Computational Design of a Low-Visibility UAV Using Human-Aligned Perceptual Metric. "Most efforts to hide drones focus on making them look like their surroundings," says Rubenstein. "Instead, we asked whether we could design the drone itself around the way humans perceive motion. This idea of low visibility through persistent motion is something few people have explored." That distinction matters because drones are increasingly used to watch wildlife, check aging infrastructure, or survey wetlands, but their mere presence changes the behavior of whatever they're observing. Birds scatter, animals flee, people act differently. A drone that's hard to spot could do the same job without that side effect. Prior attempts at motion-based concealment offer useful context here. The Northwestern paper points to an earlier project nicknamed the Boomerang Drone, covered in a 2006 New York Times Magazine piece, which tried a similar high-speed rotation trick but couldn't spin fast enough to fully exploit the blur effect, leaving it largely visible. The paper authors also trace the broader idea of active concealment back to the "Yehudi light," a counter-illumination project developed by the National Defense Research Committee in 1944 to hide Allied sea-search aircraft from enemy view. The Phantom Twist itself takes a very different shape from those earlier attempts. Rather than a typical quadcopter with four separate rotors, it runs on a single motor and a single propeller, with the propeller spinning one way while the rest of the drone's body spins the opposite way. "For a typical quadrotor drone, the propellers are spinning, but the robot is stationary," Rubenstein explains. "So, you still see its body. For our drone, the whole thing is rotating, so there are no stationary parts." To reach that layout, the team's computer model generated roughly 20,000 possible drone configurations capable of stable flight, then used artificial intelligence and optimization algorithms to repeatedly rearrange the motor, propeller, circuit board, counterweight, and batteries. Each design was simulated spinning mid-flight and overlaid on 100 real-world backgrounds, then scored by a perceptual model built to mimic human vision, where a lower score meant better camouflage. The 500 best-scoring designs were run through the optimizer again to squeeze out further gains before a final version was built. Emma Alexander, an assistant professor of computer science and one of the study's co-authors, explains the underlying physics. "The human eye takes time to accumulate signals, roughly analogous to the exposure time of a camera," she says. "When an object spins quickly, we perceive it as blurring out and losing distinct features. Because this new drone is almost entirely transparent, its few opaque components are visually averaged with the background for an overall appearance of a slight haze." According to the paper's visibility metric, the finished drone is about 10 times harder to spot than a standard quadcopter. But the spinning trick has real limits that make this drone far from being completely unnoticeable. The propeller still makes an audible whir that gives the drone away even when the eye can't, and its support wires and rods remain partly visible. The paper's authors suggest future versions could lean on more transparent materials and quieter propulsion, edging the drone ever closer to true – and somewhat scary – invisibility. After all, the same trick making a drone less impactful on wildlife could just as easily help it sneak around for reasons that aren't so friendly.

Owen Gregorian

21,204 views • 6 days ago

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.
10:20

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.

TheValueist

101,296 views • 7 months ago

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90˚ turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity
2:36

Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90˚ turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity

TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)

45,879 views • 1 year ago

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).
9:00

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).

TheValueist

76,046 views • 7 months ago

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: 🛰️ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: ⚡ The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. 🔋 The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. ⚖️ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. 🔄 The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- 📐 AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: 📏 The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. ↕️ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. ☀️ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/m² using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. 🌡️ The thermal system utilizes a 110 m² deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. 🔄 The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. 🛡️ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. 🧭 The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- 🧩 Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: 🎛️ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. ☀️ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. 🌡️ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. 🔄 The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- 🔌 Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: 🧠 Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. 💾 The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. 💻 Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. 🌐 The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. ⏱️ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- 🏭 The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: 🗺️ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. 🏢 The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. ⚙️ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. 📅 Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- 🏢 The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: 🏭 The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. ⚡ The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. 📦 This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. 🔌 Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. 🇺🇸 The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- 📶 Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: 📈 The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. 🌍 The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- 📈 Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1️⃣ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2️⃣ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3️⃣ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4️⃣ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- 🌕 Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: 🌙 The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. ⚡ Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. 🧲 Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. 🚀 Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun type—it's basically a linear electric motor."
31:16

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: 🛰️ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: ⚡ The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. 🔋 The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. ⚖️ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. 🔄 The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- 📐 AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: 📏 The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. ↕️ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. ☀️ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/m² using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. 🌡️ The thermal system utilizes a 110 m² deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. 🔄 The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. 🛡️ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. 🧭 The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- 🧩 Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: 🎛️ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. ☀️ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. 🌡️ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. 🔄 The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- 🔌 Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: 🧠 Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. 💾 The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. 💻 Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. 🌐 The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. ⏱️ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- 🏭 The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: 🗺️ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. 🏢 The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. ⚙️ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. 📅 Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- 🏢 The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: 🏭 The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. ⚡ The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. 📦 This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. 🔌 Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. 🇺🇸 The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- 📶 Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: 📈 The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. 🌍 The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- 📈 Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1️⃣ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2️⃣ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3️⃣ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4️⃣ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- 🌕 Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: 🌙 The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. ⚡ Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. 🧲 Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. 🚀 Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun type—it's basically a linear electric motor."

Ming

22,203 views • 1 month ago