Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Ed Zitron says there is no post-dotcom-style recovery here, because outside OpenAI and Anthropic all of AI barely sells $22 billion against a trillion spent "The post-dotcom bubble thing people say is, well, after that there was demand from the internet." "That's very different to demand for generative AI."...

124,124 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. OpenAI and Anthropic are losing money on every dollar they make. OpenAI generated $20 billion in revenue in 2025 and is projected to lose $14 billion in the same year. Internal forecasts project cumulative losses hitting $44 billion by 2028. The company's own CFO warned executives in April 2026 that OpenAI might struggle to finance upcoming computing deals if revenue growth slows. Anthropic reached $4.3 billion in annualized revenue in April 2026 against $19 billion in total costs. It spends $3 to make $1, and is not expected to stop burning cash until 2027. Now look at what these two companies have committed to spend. OpenAI and Anthropic together have committed $1.05 trillion in cloud spending to Microsoft, Oracle, Google and Amazon, making up 43 to 54% of each provider's entire future revenue backlog. - Microsoft: $627B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 49%. - Oracle: $553B total backlog. OpenAI alone accounts for 54%. - Google: $467.6B total backlog. Anthropic accounts for 43%. - Amazon: $464B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 51%. The entire cloud industry's future revenue is a bet on two companies losing billions every quarter. Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon are collectively expected to spend $725 billion in capex in 2026, almost entirely on AI infrastructure. Combined hyperscaler capex from 2025 to 2027 is projected at $1.15 trillion, more than double what was spent from 2022 to 2024. What is the return on all of this? McKinsey's 2025 State of AI survey found that only a minority of companies reported AI meaningfully increased revenue or reduced costs. Enterprise generative AI spending grew from $1.7 billion in 2023 to $37 billion in 2025 and most CIOs still describe their initiatives as pilots without clear ROI metrics. Microsoft's AI business is running at a $37 billion annual revenue run rate with 123% year over year growth. That sounds impressive until you realize most of the capex funding is justified by expected future AI revenue rather than current AI profit. The internet burned money for years before it became the most profitable industry in history. But right now $1 trillion in committed cloud spend, $725 billion in annual capex, two loss-making customers making up half of every major cloud provider's revenue backlog, and the enterprises writing the checks cannot tell you if any of it is working.

Crypto Rover

58,862 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

93,276 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jensen to AI Leaders: “We have to be far more thoughtful” when communicating to the public Jensen Huang: “(AI) is not a biological being. It is not alien. It is not conscious. It is computer software.” “We say things like, ‘We don't understand it at all.’ It is not true. We understand a lot of things about this technology.” Chamath: “If you were in the seat in the boardroom of Anthropic over that whole scuttlebutt with the Department of War, what do you think you would've told Dario and that team to do, maybe, differently to try to change some of this outcome and some of this perception?” Jensen: “The first thing that I would say about Anthropic is, first of all, the technology is incredible. We are a large consumer of Anthropic technology.” “The desire to warn people about the capability of the technology is also really terrific.” “We just have to make sure that we understand that the world has a spectrum, and that warning is good, scaring is less good because this technology is too important to us.” “I think that it is fine to predict the future, but we need to be a little bit more circumspect. We need to have a little bit more humility, that, in fact, we can't completely predict the future.” “And to say things that are quite extreme, quite catastrophic, that there's no evidence of it happening, could be more damaging than people think.” “And of course we are technology leaders.” “There was a time when nobody listened to us, but now because technology is so important in the social fabric, such an important industry, so important to national security, our words do matter.” “And I think we have to be much more circumspect, we have to be more moderate, we have to be more balanced, we have to be far more thoughtful.”

The All-In Podcast

57,581 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

ELON MUSK: The future is fundamentally AI and Robots. “Our AI revenue will exceed all other SpaceX revenue probably in September, like next month, and will significantly exceed all other SpaceX revenue in the fourth quarter. So, AI has become an extremely important part of SpaceX’s future. I think it’s actually vital that we succeed in AI, not just in hardware, but also in software. So, yeah, the future is fundamentally AI and robots. Assuming civilization continues to progress, I think that AI will probably, the amount of digital intelligence will probably be more than a trillion times the amount of biological intelligence. So, not sort of equal to human intelligence, but probably a trillion times higher. I’d say a billion times higher than the amount of artificial intelligence that we have today. I’d say a billion times is an easy prediction, and probably a trillion. So, as you harness more and more of the sun’s energy, the ability to turn that into intelligence is fundamentally a digital computer thing, because it’s pretty hard for humans to go live in deep space without any support. I mean, some of the math is interesting to think about, which is that if you increased civilizational energy usage, the amount of energy that we have harnessed as a civilization by a factor of a million, you would still be using much less than one millionth of the sun’s energy. Now, most of this is in deep space, obviously, but the future is very much AI, very much, and I suppose it was always going to be that way. But it’s important that we have an AI that cares about humanity, that fosters humanity and helps take us to other planets and other star systems, and this is why I think it’s essential that SpaceX succeed, not just with AI hardware, but also with AI software.”

DogeDesigner

67,681 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

Jensen Huang just admitted Nvidia is paying for BOTH ends of its own $500 billion deal. Every outlet ran the same headline: Nvidia is putting half a trillion dollars into Korea. The largest AI infrastructure commitment ever announced with a single partner. But when asked what was actually inside that number and whether this is Nvidia spending money in the Korean economy, or SK fronting the capital themselves, Jensen said this: "We're gonna be purchasing memories from them for many years to come. In order to build a trillion dollars worth of Vera Rubin systems, you're gonna have to buy a lot of system memories to go with it. And so we have large purchase agreements and large purchase intentions with SK Hynix. Meanwhile, SK Telecom is gonna become an AI cloud. And in that agreement, we will be selling AI supercomputers to them. So between us, we're gonna do $500 billion worth of business." He literally described two completely different transactions and added them together. Nvidia pays SK Hynix for memory chips. SK Telecom pays Nvidia for supercomputers. Both directions get stacked into one figure and handed to the market as demand. A large share of that half trillion dollars is Nvidia's own money going OUT the door. This is the CEO of the most important chip company on Earth. His silicon runs every serious AI system on the planet. If anyone alive could announce a clean half trillion in customer demand, it's him. Instead he announced a number that counts his own supplier payments as "business." But now this is where it gets genuinely crazy... Bloomberg asked how badly Nvidia needs Korean supply to grow. Jensen said Nvidia does not have enough bits. He said the company is constrained in HBM memory, constrained in LPDDR memory, and constrained in just about every part of the supply chain. Then he named the bottleneck nobody expected: "We're even constrained now with land and power and construction workers to set up the data centers." The company announcing the biggest AI deal in history cannot hire enough people to pour concrete. Then he capped the entire industry. He said the industry has the ability to double each year, and will have a hard time growing much faster than that. Now hold that against the target he set at the top of the same interview: He said the semiconductor industry probably has to become 10x larger than it is today over the next decade. Doubling annually clears that on a spreadsheet. But in reality it only happens if land, power and construction crews cooperate every single year for ten years straight. And the demand justifying all of it is a number most people have not heard yet. Jensen is planning for 100 BILLION AI agents and billions of robots using computers. That is the actual bet. 10x the industry, financed by deals where the vendor is also the customer, and gated by how fast you can find electricians. Korea's market did not celebrate any of this by the way. The KOSPI has been falling hard and SK Hynix and Samsung both slumped while the half trillion dollar headline was running. Jensen listed both directions of money and totaled them on camera because he does not think there is anything wrong with it. Maybe there isn't. Chips have to be bought before systems can be sold. But the market is pricing these announcements as demand, and at least half of this one is spending.

Ricardo

35,609 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Andrew Ng, co-founder of Google Brain and Coursera, on the worst career advice being given about AI right now: He doesn't mince words about what he's hearing from supposed experts: "As early as earlier this year and certainly last year, there are a few people advising others to stop learning to write code because AI will automate it." His reasoning is rooted in a historical pattern most people miss: "As something becomes easier, more people should do it, not fewer. When the world moved from assembly language to COBOL, there were actually articles saying, 'Well, we now have COBOL. Programming is so easier. Looks like we don't need programmers anymore.' But the opposite happened." Andrew believes the same thing is happening now with AI-assisted coding: "As we now have AI assisted coding, a lot more people should be coding. And I think the demand for software, custom software, has no practical ceiling. So the cost of software engineering comes down, which it is, we'll just get more and more great software out in the world." But here's where the advice gets uncomfortable for experienced engineers. Andrew Ng is honest about what he's seeing on the ground: "It is true that a fresh college grad that is really on top of AI will outperform a full stack engineer with 10 years of experience that is still doing things they were back in 2022, 3 years ago before GenAI." However, there's a nuance most people miss when they hear that stereotype: "The other piece that is less well appreciated is the best engineers I know are not fresh college grads. They're actually very experienced engineers that deeply understand architecture and the conceptual framework of how to think about computers and additionally are on top of AI and on top of these AI skills."

Big Brain AI

211,750 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten