Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Gavin Baker just posed the trillion dollar question, who's actually going to pay for all this AI spending? Baker frames the whole AI capex debate around one question, since even if hyperscalers are under earning today and compute pricing normalizes, someone has to pay for that recovered cash flow... and that money comes from only two places, faster economic growth or labor substitution. The scale of the number itself is what makes the debate matter. There's roughly $25 trillion in global knowledge work spending and even a conservative 20% token spend ratio against that total comp base implies $5 trillion in potential AI spend, an amount that has to be funded by either productivity gains or replaced headcount. Real company data shows token spend already climbing toward that range. Ramp's own economist reported AI adoption crossing 50% of US businesses by March 2026, up from 35% a year earlier, and average monthly AI token spend across Ramp's customer base has grown 13 times since January 2025. Among the most aggressive adopters, that spend is becoming a serious share of total labor cost rather than a rounding error. SemiAnalysis reportedly runs AI token spend at 30% of total compensation spend and some companies have pushed that ratio as high as 50%, putting them well ahead of the 20-25% range typical even among heavily AI-pilled firms. The labor substitution side of Gavin Baker framework is already visible in company financials. Gross profit dollars per full-time employee at AI native companies tracked by a16z and Carta are running meaningfully higher than prior startup generations, showing these companies are staying lean rather than scaling headcount alongside revenue. Founder led companies are sending a different signal than the substitution story alone would suggest. Rather than replacing existing staff, most founder controlled companies aren't running large-scale layoffs even as they adopt AI heavily, which points toward AI spend layering on top of existing headcount to chase new growth rather than simply cutting costs. That distinction matters because it's exactly the bull case Baker is describing. Ramp's Spring 2026 report found companies investing the most in AI more than doubled their revenue since ChatGPT launched, while companies with zero AI spend grew only 15% and Ramp separately found heavy AI spenders growing revenue roughly twice as fast as low spend peers. Put together, the evidence leans toward growth rather than pure substitution funding this spend.show more

Milk Road AI

46,603 subscribers

30,259 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Finanzen Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Chamath on why the AI capex spend might end up in a bubble Even though the race is on to adopt this technology as fast as possible, key economic indicators such as productivity and GDP growth are not yet showing any meaningful changes because of AI For the spend on AI to continue, companies need to be able to point to margin expansion or revenue growth that was directly contributed through AI A shoe company must be able to say they sold more shoes because of AI adoption A food or restaurant business must be able to say that they generated higher profits because of AI adoption This is simply not the case today. Until that happens, the AI thesis remains fickle

Chamath on why the AI capex spend might end up in a bubble Even though the race is on to adopt this technology as fast as possible, key economic indicators such as productivity and GDP growth are not yet showing any meaningful changes because of AI For the spend on AI to continue, companies need to be able to point to margin expansion or revenue growth that was directly contributed through AI A shoe company must be able to say they sold more shoes because of AI adoption A food or restaurant business must be able to say that they generated higher profits because of AI adoption This is simply not the case today. Until that happens, the AI thesis remains fickle

Boring_Business

144,173 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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.

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 2 Monaten

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Microsoft just banned its own engineers from using AI. The tool was literally costing MORE than the humans it was supposed to replace. They lied to you about AI adoption and now the whole narrative is blowing up: Microsoft gave thousands of engineers access to Claude Code six months ago and encouraged them to use it. Engineers loved it and adoption exploded. But then the invoices arrived. Token-based pricing means every query, every code review, every debugging session costs money. At scale across 100,000 engineers, the numbers became so large that Microsoft issued an internal order to cancel nearly all Claude Code licenses by end of June and force everyone onto their own cheaper tool instead. The company that invested $5 billion in Anthropic just told its own people to stop using Anthropic's product because it costs too much. Uber's story is even worse... Their CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga told The Information that the budget he planned for the full year was "blown away already" by April. Uber had rolled out Claude Code in December 2025. By March, 84% of their 5,000 engineers were using it with 70% of all committed code coming from AI systems. Heavy users were burning $500 to $2,000 per month each. Naga himself spent $1,200 in a single two-hour demo session. The company had even built internal leaderboards ranking engineers by how much AI they used. They literally gamified the spending and then ran out of money. Now look at what Nvidia's own VP of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said to Axios last month. Direct quote: "For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees." This is a VP at the company that SELLS the chips saying that using AI is more expensive than paying humans. Think about what this means for the entire AI narrative. Every CEO on every earnings call for the past two years has said the same thing: AI will make us more efficient, reduce headcount, and cut costs. The stock market rewarded every company that said it. Fired workers, stock goes up. Announced AI adoption, stock goes up. But the actual companies deploying AI at scale are discovering the math doesn't work. The MORE employees use AI, the HIGHER the bill. Goldman Sachs forecasts a 24x increase in token consumption by 2030 as companies adopt AI agents. Gartner just published a report showing that even though individual token prices will drop 90% by 2030, total enterprise AI costs will go UP because agents consume exponentially more tokens per task than basic tools. Meta built an internal dashboard called "Claudeonomics" to track which employees use the most AI. Amazon started pushing engineers to "tokenmaxx," their internal term for consuming as many AI tokens as possible. Both companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure this year alone. And Microsoft, the company that bet its entire future on AI, just told 100,000 engineers to stop using the tool they liked best because the per-token bills got out of control. The companies building AI are telling investors it saves money. The companies using AI are finding out it costs more than the humans it was supposed to replace. And even the company that makes the chips just admitted it through its own VP. This is the gap nobody on Wall Street is pricing in. $725 billion in AI infrastructure spending this year across Big Tech. And the first companies to actually deploy these tools at scale are already pulling back because the economics don't work. What do you think?

Ricardo

2,967,799 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Morgan Stanley just raised their 2027 AI capex forecast to $1.1 trillion and that number still doesn't include SpaceX or a lot of the other AI companies (Save this). When you factor those in, the real 2027 figure is probably closer to $1.5 trillion and AI lab inference revenue combined is tracking toward $300 billion in 2027. On its surface that ratio sounds alarming, spending $1.5 trillion in capex to generate $300 billion in revenue. But the framing collapses the moment you examine two things the bears consistently ignore, gross margins and the revenue trajectory. Gross margins on inference revenue are running at 60 to 70 percent. That means the $300 billion in inference revenue generates $180 to $210 billion in gross profit and that number compounds rapidly as utilization scales on infrastructure that is already built and paid for. The Capex is not being deployed against today's revenue but rather being deployed against a revenue trajectory that has shown no signs of decelerating. To understand how aggressive that trajectory actually is, consider that Morgan Stanley's $1.1 trillion hyperscaler forecast is nearly double what analysts projected for the same year just twelve months ago And they described the demand as inelastic, meaning it is not slowing down regardless of rising costs, tighter financing conditions or geopolitical risk. The AI industry ended 2025 tracking well over $200 billion in combined inference revenue and the growth rate since then has continued to accelerate rather than flatten. Anthropic alone scaled from negligible revenue to a $30 billion annualized run rate in approximately 18 months while OpenAI is tracking toward $280 billion in annual revenue by 2030 from $13 billion in 2025. There is also a structural reality in the capex number that the bears never account for. Roughly 35 percent of total AI spending goes toward training, building the next model generation which is not revenue-generating in the current period. That means only about 65 percent of the $1.5 trillion in capex is actually deployed against the inference infrastructure that earns revenue today. When you apply the 60 to 70 percent gross margin to the revenue that sits on top of that 65 percent figure, the economics look substantially better than the headline capex to revenue ratio implies. Every CEO who has been closest to this buildout has consistently underestimated it and Jensen Huang projected $1 trillion in AI capex two years ago and was called delusional. Dario Amodei said in early 2026 that AI revenues would reach the low hundreds of billions by 2028 and trillions before 2030 and given where Anthropic's own revenue trajectory is today, he is likely revising those numbers upward. The pattern here is consistent, every time someone models the revenue ceiling, the actual number breaks through it faster than expected. Come join Milk Road Pro for our full breakdown, the real unit economics of the AI inference buildout, how the capex to revenue ratio evolves over the next three years, and our entire AI thesis! Link below!

Morgan Stanley just raised their 2027 AI capex forecast to $1.1 trillion and that number still doesn't include SpaceX or a lot of the other AI companies (Save this). When you factor those in, the real 2027 figure is probably closer to $1.5 trillion and AI lab inference revenue combined is tracking toward $300 billion in 2027. On its surface that ratio sounds alarming, spending $1.5 trillion in capex to generate $300 billion in revenue. But the framing collapses the moment you examine two things the bears consistently ignore, gross margins and the revenue trajectory. Gross margins on inference revenue are running at 60 to 70 percent. That means the $300 billion in inference revenue generates $180 to $210 billion in gross profit and that number compounds rapidly as utilization scales on infrastructure that is already built and paid for. The Capex is not being deployed against today's revenue but rather being deployed against a revenue trajectory that has shown no signs of decelerating. To understand how aggressive that trajectory actually is, consider that Morgan Stanley's $1.1 trillion hyperscaler forecast is nearly double what analysts projected for the same year just twelve months ago And they described the demand as inelastic, meaning it is not slowing down regardless of rising costs, tighter financing conditions or geopolitical risk. The AI industry ended 2025 tracking well over $200 billion in combined inference revenue and the growth rate since then has continued to accelerate rather than flatten. Anthropic alone scaled from negligible revenue to a $30 billion annualized run rate in approximately 18 months while OpenAI is tracking toward $280 billion in annual revenue by 2030 from $13 billion in 2025. There is also a structural reality in the capex number that the bears never account for. Roughly 35 percent of total AI spending goes toward training, building the next model generation which is not revenue-generating in the current period. That means only about 65 percent of the $1.5 trillion in capex is actually deployed against the inference infrastructure that earns revenue today. When you apply the 60 to 70 percent gross margin to the revenue that sits on top of that 65 percent figure, the economics look substantially better than the headline capex to revenue ratio implies. Every CEO who has been closest to this buildout has consistently underestimated it and Jensen Huang projected $1 trillion in AI capex two years ago and was called delusional. Dario Amodei said in early 2026 that AI revenues would reach the low hundreds of billions by 2028 and trillions before 2030 and given where Anthropic's own revenue trajectory is today, he is likely revising those numbers upward. The pattern here is consistent, every time someone models the revenue ceiling, the actual number breaks through it faster than expected. Come join Milk Road Pro for our full breakdown, the real unit economics of the AI inference buildout, how the capex to revenue ratio evolves over the next three years, and our entire AI thesis! Link below!

Milk Road AI

21,141 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Block, on why treating AI as a "copilot" is a losing strategy: jack argues that most companies are approaching AI in a way that will make it nearly impossible for them to survive. "I think most of the industry is thinking about AI as like a co-pilot, as something that is augmented onto, rather than like how do you just rebuild our whole company with this as the core." His concern is that bolting AI onto existing structures produces companies that look indistinguishable from each other, and from the AI labs themselves. "If it doesn't make sense for your business to do that and you end up being or looking very similar or rhyming too closely with the frontier labs, then I think it's going to be very, very challenging to differentiate and survive." This thinking has been driving his decisions since early 2024, when these tools "really came to bear." That's when his team began building Goose, an agent coding harness, as part of a broader effort to rebuild around AI rather than layer it on top. The core insight? Speeding up old workflows with AI is a short-term gain every competitor will match. Real differentiation comes from rebuilding the company itself around intelligence.

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Block, on why treating AI as a "copilot" is a losing strategy: jack argues that most companies are approaching AI in a way that will make it nearly impossible for them to survive. "I think most of the industry is thinking about AI as like a co-pilot, as something that is augmented onto, rather than like how do you just rebuild our whole company with this as the core." His concern is that bolting AI onto existing structures produces companies that look indistinguishable from each other, and from the AI labs themselves. "If it doesn't make sense for your business to do that and you end up being or looking very similar or rhyming too closely with the frontier labs, then I think it's going to be very, very challenging to differentiate and survive." This thinking has been driving his decisions since early 2024, when these tools "really came to bear." That's when his team began building Goose, an agent coding harness, as part of a broader effort to rebuild around AI rather than layer it on top. The core insight? Speeding up old workflows with AI is a short-term gain every competitor will match. Real differentiation comes from rebuilding the company itself around intelligence.

Big Brain AI

862,458 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The CEO of Anthropic just said we are 1 to 3 years away from AGI. On camera. With 90% confidence. Almost nobody watched it. INSTEAD OF ARGUING ABOUT AI TAKING JOBS. Spend 2 hours watching the CEO of Anthropic explain exactly when and how it happens. The AI compute arms race just got a reality check nobody expected. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic just did the math out loud: → Revenue growing 10x per year means $100B by end of 2026 and $1T by end of 2027 → At that trajectory you could theoretically buy $5T in compute over 5 years → But if revenue comes in at even $800B instead of $1T, bankruptcy. No exceptions → And if growth slows from 10x to just 5x per year, the entire model collapses by one year This is the most honest thing anyone in AI has said publicly in years. The companies building AI infrastructure are making trillion-dollar bets on growth curves that have never existed before in history. One year off. One multiplier wrong. The whole thing unravels. The AI compute boom is real. The risk underneath it is equally real. The question is not whether AI is the future. It is whether anyone can survive long enough to get there

The CEO of Anthropic just said we are 1 to 3 years away from AGI. On camera. With 90% confidence. Almost nobody watched it. INSTEAD OF ARGUING ABOUT AI TAKING JOBS. Spend 2 hours watching the CEO of Anthropic explain exactly when and how it happens. The AI compute arms race just got a reality check nobody expected. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic just did the math out loud: → Revenue growing 10x per year means $100B by end of 2026 and $1T by end of 2027 → At that trajectory you could theoretically buy $5T in compute over 5 years → But if revenue comes in at even $800B instead of $1T, bankruptcy. No exceptions → And if growth slows from 10x to just 5x per year, the entire model collapses by one year This is the most honest thing anyone in AI has said publicly in years. The companies building AI infrastructure are making trillion-dollar bets on growth curves that have never existed before in history. One year off. One multiplier wrong. The whole thing unravels. The AI compute boom is real. The risk underneath it is equally real. The question is not whether AI is the future. It is whether anyone can survive long enough to get there

Dami-Defi

16,080 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Chamath just asked the question nobody in AI wants to answer (Save this). "Okay guys, you've spent $3 trillion in the last four years. What is the ROI of these tokens?" It is the most important question in technology right now and the data suggests most of the people being asked cannot answer it. A PwC CEO survey published in January 2026 found that 56% of CEOs report no increase in revenue and no decrease in costs attributable to AI over the past year meaning the majority of companies deploying AI tools have not yet produced a single dollar of auditable return. And only 12% reported experiencing both benefits. Hyperscalers alone are on track to spend $675 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, up 63% year over year, with total global AI investment approaching $2.5 trillion this year alone against a backdrop where most enterprise buyers cannot yet quantify what any of it produced. Chamath's answer to the question is the real insight. He said what happens next is that enterprises go to guys like Mark Benioff and say: "please sell my tokens." In other words, the AI labs built the capability but the enterprise software giants are the ones who have the customer relationships, the distribution, the workflows and the trust to actually convert token consumption into measurable business outcomes and therefore into revenue that justifies the spend. Mark Benioff was sitting in the same conversation and confirmed exactly that, he said Salesforce is about to spend $300 million on Anthropic. But listen to what Benioff did with Salesforce's own balance sheet at the same time. He announced the largest stock buyback in enterprise software history $50 billion, or 28% of Salesforce's entire market cap while simultaneously admitting the stock has fallen 36% over the past year. In March, Salesforce launched the largest accelerated share repurchase in history to execute $25 billion of it immediately, financed in part with debt it will be carrying until 2066. Chamath is pointing at the underlying structural problem that has triggered the SaaS rout of 2026, software forward P/E multiples have now fallen below the S&P 500 for the first time in history, the iShares software ETF is down over 21% year to date and 30% from its September 2025 peak, and companies like Adobe, and Workday have seen their valuation multiples drop 47-54% in a single year. The core fear is not that AI does not work but rather that AI is breaking the seat based model that built the entire B2B software industry. If one AI agent can do the work of five employees, enterprises stop buying 500 seats and start buying 100, or renegotiate entirely and the recurring revenue that made SaaS stocks trade at 40 times forward earnings simply evaporates. Chamath's prediction is that AI multiples come way back down while infrastructure plays go back up and find a balance is essentially already happening in real time.

Chamath just asked the question nobody in AI wants to answer (Save this). "Okay guys, you've spent $3 trillion in the last four years. What is the ROI of these tokens?" It is the most important question in technology right now and the data suggests most of the people being asked cannot answer it. A PwC CEO survey published in January 2026 found that 56% of CEOs report no increase in revenue and no decrease in costs attributable to AI over the past year meaning the majority of companies deploying AI tools have not yet produced a single dollar of auditable return. And only 12% reported experiencing both benefits. Hyperscalers alone are on track to spend $675 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, up 63% year over year, with total global AI investment approaching $2.5 trillion this year alone against a backdrop where most enterprise buyers cannot yet quantify what any of it produced. Chamath's answer to the question is the real insight. He said what happens next is that enterprises go to guys like Mark Benioff and say: "please sell my tokens." In other words, the AI labs built the capability but the enterprise software giants are the ones who have the customer relationships, the distribution, the workflows and the trust to actually convert token consumption into measurable business outcomes and therefore into revenue that justifies the spend. Mark Benioff was sitting in the same conversation and confirmed exactly that, he said Salesforce is about to spend $300 million on Anthropic. But listen to what Benioff did with Salesforce's own balance sheet at the same time. He announced the largest stock buyback in enterprise software history $50 billion, or 28% of Salesforce's entire market cap while simultaneously admitting the stock has fallen 36% over the past year. In March, Salesforce launched the largest accelerated share repurchase in history to execute $25 billion of it immediately, financed in part with debt it will be carrying until 2066. Chamath is pointing at the underlying structural problem that has triggered the SaaS rout of 2026, software forward P/E multiples have now fallen below the S&P 500 for the first time in history, the iShares software ETF is down over 21% year to date and 30% from its September 2025 peak, and companies like Adobe, and Workday have seen their valuation multiples drop 47-54% in a single year. The core fear is not that AI does not work but rather that AI is breaking the seat based model that built the entire B2B software industry. If one AI agent can do the work of five employees, enterprises stop buying 500 seats and start buying 100, or renegotiate entirely and the recurring revenue that made SaaS stocks trade at 40 times forward earnings simply evaporates. Chamath's prediction is that AI multiples come way back down while infrastructure plays go back up and find a balance is essentially already happening in real time.

Milk Road AI

115,608 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 THE WORLD’S CENTRAL BANKERS ARE STARTING TO PANIC ABOUT AI. Not because AI is failing. Because the entire AI boom is now being built on debt, leverage, shadow banking, and financial structures that are starting to look disturbingly similar to 2008. The BIS just warned that an “AI bust” could trigger serious global financial instability. And once you look at the numbers, the concern starts making sense very quickly. Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Google and Oracle are expected to spend more than $1 TRILLION on AI capex between 2025 and 2026 alone. For 2026 itself, hyperscaler AI spending is tracking around $750 BILLION. That is a 77% jump from already record levels last year. The problem? A massive part of this expansion is being financed through debt. Morgan Stanley estimates hyperscalers and AI joint ventures alone could generate $250–300 BILLION in debt issuance by 2026. AI-focused companies already secured at least $200 BILLION through debt financing in 2025. And some companies are now literally borrowing money using Nvidia GPUs as collateral. That is where things start getting dangerous. CoreWeave, one of the biggest AI infrastructure companies, now has liabilities above $21 BILLION after pioneering GPU-backed debt financing. Its entire structure depends on Nvidia chips holding value long enough for the debt to get repaid. But GPUs depreciate extremely fast. Every new Nvidia generation immediately weakens the value of the previous one. Which means billions in loans are now backed by hardware that can lose relevance before the debt even matures. And according to the BIS, the financing structures around AI are becoming increasingly opaque. The same assets may be pledged multiple times across different financing vehicles. That is exactly the type of circular leverage that made the 2008 system so fragile. At the same time, the actual economic returns from AI still remain largely unproven. Goldman Sachs found “basically zero” economy-wide productivity gains from AI in 2025 despite hundreds of billions already being spent. Only 1% of S&P 500 companies were even able to quantify any earnings impact from AI. Yet markets are behaving like the returns are already guaranteed. Now combine this with: • Global debt at a record $353 TRILLION • Inflation jumping back to 4.2% • Private credit stress already appearing • AI chip shortages • Data center bottlenecks • And AI valuations approaching dot-com bubble extremes according to the IMF, ECB, BIS and Bank of England. This is why central banks are suddenly sounding alarmed. Because if hyperscalers ever slow AI spending, the debt chain behind the entire boom starts getting tested immediately. And right now, the global financial system is more leveraged than ever.

🚨 THE WORLD’S CENTRAL BANKERS ARE STARTING TO PANIC ABOUT AI. Not because AI is failing. Because the entire AI boom is now being built on debt, leverage, shadow banking, and financial structures that are starting to look disturbingly similar to 2008. The BIS just warned that an “AI bust” could trigger serious global financial instability. And once you look at the numbers, the concern starts making sense very quickly. Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Google and Oracle are expected to spend more than $1 TRILLION on AI capex between 2025 and 2026 alone. For 2026 itself, hyperscaler AI spending is tracking around $750 BILLION. That is a 77% jump from already record levels last year. The problem? A massive part of this expansion is being financed through debt. Morgan Stanley estimates hyperscalers and AI joint ventures alone could generate $250–300 BILLION in debt issuance by 2026. AI-focused companies already secured at least $200 BILLION through debt financing in 2025. And some companies are now literally borrowing money using Nvidia GPUs as collateral. That is where things start getting dangerous. CoreWeave, one of the biggest AI infrastructure companies, now has liabilities above $21 BILLION after pioneering GPU-backed debt financing. Its entire structure depends on Nvidia chips holding value long enough for the debt to get repaid. But GPUs depreciate extremely fast. Every new Nvidia generation immediately weakens the value of the previous one. Which means billions in loans are now backed by hardware that can lose relevance before the debt even matures. And according to the BIS, the financing structures around AI are becoming increasingly opaque. The same assets may be pledged multiple times across different financing vehicles. That is exactly the type of circular leverage that made the 2008 system so fragile. At the same time, the actual economic returns from AI still remain largely unproven. Goldman Sachs found “basically zero” economy-wide productivity gains from AI in 2025 despite hundreds of billions already being spent. Only 1% of S&P 500 companies were even able to quantify any earnings impact from AI. Yet markets are behaving like the returns are already guaranteed. Now combine this with: • Global debt at a record $353 TRILLION • Inflation jumping back to 4.2% • Private credit stress already appearing • AI chip shortages • Data center bottlenecks • And AI valuations approaching dot-com bubble extremes according to the IMF, ECB, BIS and Bank of England. This is why central banks are suddenly sounding alarmed. Because if hyperscalers ever slow AI spending, the debt chain behind the entire boom starts getting tested immediately. And right now, the global financial system is more leveraged than ever.

Crypto Rover

86,404 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Bob McGrew (Head of Research OpenAI) explains why proprietary data no longer provides companies with a competitive advantage in the AI era. Finance companies once believed their years of accumulated data would give them an edge. They planned to train specialized models on top of GPT or Llama using their exclusive information. The results shocked them. Their industry-specific models performed worse than the next generation of general purpose models. The ability to synthesize new information proved more valuable than memorizing old data. McGrew introduces the concept of "embodied labor" - the human work behind data collection. Companies spent years having employees call customers, analyze case studies, and gather information through manual processes. This accumulated knowledge required massive time and money to build. It represented thousands of hours of human effort that companies thought couldn't be replicated by competitors. But AI changes everything. Instead of years of customer calls, AI can conduct comprehensive surveys instantly. Rather than manual case analysis, AI processes thousands of examples in hours. The core insight is that value wasn't in the data itself but in the labor required to collect it. Since AI makes that labor essentially free, the advantage disappears. Companies can no longer rely on their proprietary data as a protective moat. Any competitor can use AI to replicate years of data gathering almost instantly.

Bob McGrew (Head of Research OpenAI) explains why proprietary data no longer provides companies with a competitive advantage in the AI era. Finance companies once believed their years of accumulated data would give them an edge. They planned to train specialized models on top of GPT or Llama using their exclusive information. The results shocked them. Their industry-specific models performed worse than the next generation of general purpose models. The ability to synthesize new information proved more valuable than memorizing old data. McGrew introduces the concept of "embodied labor" - the human work behind data collection. Companies spent years having employees call customers, analyze case studies, and gather information through manual processes. This accumulated knowledge required massive time and money to build. It represented thousands of hours of human effort that companies thought couldn't be replicated by competitors. But AI changes everything. Instead of years of customer calls, AI can conduct comprehensive surveys instantly. Rather than manual case analysis, AI processes thousands of examples in hours. The core insight is that value wasn't in the data itself but in the labor required to collect it. Since AI makes that labor essentially free, the advantage disappears. Companies can no longer rely on their proprietary data as a protective moat. Any competitor can use AI to replicate years of data gathering almost instantly.

Aish

240,704 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

What happens when intelligence becomes a line item? For the first time, companies can treat AI token spending almost like headcount: allocate more money, deploy more intelligence, and potentially get more work done. That changes the economics of building a company. It could reshape how companies form, how teams are managed, how businesses are financed, and who is best positioned to build them. a16z crypto General Partner Guy Wuollet and Head of Engineering ncitron.eth join Robert Hackett to explore why engineering leaders may soon manage token budgets like P&Ls, the emergence of software-engineering “pod shops”; and whether the future belongs to smaller, leaner businesses run by people who are unusually good at directing agents. They also ask why AI agents may naturally transact using stablecoins, and confront a larger question: If AI has created so much new intelligence, why hasn’t it produced an obvious jump in economic growth? And in a world where everyone can access powerful models, will intelligence matter less than grit, judgment, and agency? 0:00 Intro 4:01 Why token spending is starting to resemble headcount 4:51 Deciding how much spend is too much spend 9:04 The agentic A/B test: How to quantify "return on tokens" 12:05 The software-engineering "pod shop" 25:13 Paying deference to the Machine God 26:06 The rise (or not) of lean, AI-native microbusinesses 28:05 Everyone's a manager? The new style of thinking for engineers 30:48 Why AI agents may naturally use stablecoins 34:33 When AI productivity will appear in GDP 47:49 Why grit and agency may matter more than IQ 51:38 How AI could create new paths for startups 54:53 Innovation, commoditization, and creative destruction

What happens when intelligence becomes a line item? For the first time, companies can treat AI token spending almost like headcount: allocate more money, deploy more intelligence, and potentially get more work done. That changes the economics of building a company. It could reshape how companies form, how teams are managed, how businesses are financed, and who is best positioned to build them. a16z crypto General Partner Guy Wuollet and Head of Engineering ncitron.eth join Robert Hackett to explore why engineering leaders may soon manage token budgets like P&Ls, the emergence of software-engineering “pod shops”; and whether the future belongs to smaller, leaner businesses run by people who are unusually good at directing agents. They also ask why AI agents may naturally transact using stablecoins, and confront a larger question: If AI has created so much new intelligence, why hasn’t it produced an obvious jump in economic growth? And in a world where everyone can access powerful models, will intelligence matter less than grit, judgment, and agency? 0:00 Intro 4:01 Why token spending is starting to resemble headcount 4:51 Deciding how much spend is too much spend 9:04 The agentic A/B test: How to quantify "return on tokens" 12:05 The software-engineering "pod shop" 25:13 Paying deference to the Machine God 26:06 The rise (or not) of lean, AI-native microbusinesses 28:05 Everyone's a manager? The new style of thinking for engineers 30:48 Why AI agents may naturally use stablecoins 34:33 When AI productivity will appear in GDP 47:49 Why grit and agency may matter more than IQ 51:38 How AI could create new paths for startups 54:53 Innovation, commoditization, and creative destruction

a16z crypto

58,360 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Gokul explains why outcome-based software companies like Zendesk are more exposed to AI than systems of record like NetSuite, and why public markets are not distinguishing between the two. He argues that the only way AI-native startups can disrupt systems of record is by spending 1-2 years building migration tools to get data off of incumbent platforms. "The software companies that should be the most worried right now is where they are pricing the product based on utility. Zendesk is a good example. Instead of paying for 50 Zendesk seats, you can pay for 20 and I can have 30 AI agents sitting next to Zendesk. For these companies you need to change your pricing model to be based on outcome. It's going to be hard for them to stay public. The companies that are less exposed are ones based on data that has been collected and captured over a period of time. ERP is a great example. There is no compelling reason for someone to put their career at stake by ripping out NetSuite. NetSuite has more time to build AI agents on top of it because they have the data, they can train the AI agent on top of it and bundle it. I think the public markets do not distinguish between these two types of companies."

Gokul explains why outcome-based software companies like Zendesk are more exposed to AI than systems of record like NetSuite, and why public markets are not distinguishing between the two. He argues that the only way AI-native startups can disrupt systems of record is by spending 1-2 years building migration tools to get data off of incumbent platforms. "The software companies that should be the most worried right now is where they are pricing the product based on utility. Zendesk is a good example. Instead of paying for 50 Zendesk seats, you can pay for 20 and I can have 30 AI agents sitting next to Zendesk. For these companies you need to change your pricing model to be based on outcome. It's going to be hard for them to stay public. The companies that are less exposed are ones based on data that has been collected and captured over a period of time. ERP is a great example. There is no compelling reason for someone to put their career at stake by ripping out NetSuite. NetSuite has more time to build AI agents on top of it because they have the data, they can train the AI agent on top of it and bundle it. I think the public markets do not distinguish between these two types of companies."

Patrick OShaughnessy

393,776 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.

Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure. This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow. The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008: Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS. The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity." The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore. Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion. The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building. All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself. And the cracks are already starting to show: Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate. The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session. Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry: Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins. And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain. Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it. When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely. And here's the really scary part... These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not. Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later. If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet. If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000. And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy.

Ricardo

228,090 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Jensen Huang just said the most dangerous thing about AI that no one is sitting with. Huang: “AI basically does most of our coding. And yet we’re hiring more engineers than ever. We have more challenges than ever. We have bigger dreams than ever.” Every engineer at NVIDIA uses AI. AI writes most of their code. This is the company building the infrastructure behind every major AI system on Earth. Closer to this technology than any organization alive. They’re hiring more people. Not fewer. Every conversation about AI is built around subtraction. Fewer jobs. Fewer workers. Fewer humans in the loop. Jensen just told you the opposite is true. Huang: “Suppose we infused AI into this country, and as a result of that, we are doing things faster than ever before. Our ambition is greater than ever before. Our expectations are greater than ever before. How is that a bad condition for our country?” He’s not defending AI. He’s describing what happens inside the organizations that actually use it. It doesn’t make them leaner. It makes them hungrier. More ambition. More speed. More appetite for problems no one would have touched five years ago. The car didn’t make humans travel less. The internet didn’t make humans communicate less. No tool in human history has ever made humans want less. AI will not be the exception. Huang: “Prior to that, it’s been incredible but not useful. Now it’s useful and incredible.” Six months. That’s how fast AI crossed from impressive demo to daily weapon. The companies that adopted it didn’t shrink. They expanded. Compressed timelines. Started chasing problems they never would have attempted. The companies that ignored it stayed exactly where they were. That gap compounds. Every day a company uses AI to move faster, it learns something the one standing still never will. That knowledge stacks. That speed stacks. That ambition stacks. Jensen isn’t warning about a future where machines take your job. He’s describing a present where the companies using AI are becoming so fast and so hungry that standing still is already fatal. By the time you notice, it’s over. You were never going to be replaced by AI. You were going to be erased by someone it made hungrier than you.

Jensen Huang just said the most dangerous thing about AI that no one is sitting with. Huang: “AI basically does most of our coding. And yet we’re hiring more engineers than ever. We have more challenges than ever. We have bigger dreams than ever.” Every engineer at NVIDIA uses AI. AI writes most of their code. This is the company building the infrastructure behind every major AI system on Earth. Closer to this technology than any organization alive. They’re hiring more people. Not fewer. Every conversation about AI is built around subtraction. Fewer jobs. Fewer workers. Fewer humans in the loop. Jensen just told you the opposite is true. Huang: “Suppose we infused AI into this country, and as a result of that, we are doing things faster than ever before. Our ambition is greater than ever before. Our expectations are greater than ever before. How is that a bad condition for our country?” He’s not defending AI. He’s describing what happens inside the organizations that actually use it. It doesn’t make them leaner. It makes them hungrier. More ambition. More speed. More appetite for problems no one would have touched five years ago. The car didn’t make humans travel less. The internet didn’t make humans communicate less. No tool in human history has ever made humans want less. AI will not be the exception. Huang: “Prior to that, it’s been incredible but not useful. Now it’s useful and incredible.” Six months. That’s how fast AI crossed from impressive demo to daily weapon. The companies that adopted it didn’t shrink. They expanded. Compressed timelines. Started chasing problems they never would have attempted. The companies that ignored it stayed exactly where they were. That gap compounds. Every day a company uses AI to move faster, it learns something the one standing still never will. That knowledge stacks. That speed stacks. That ambition stacks. Jensen isn’t warning about a future where machines take your job. He’s describing a present where the companies using AI are becoming so fast and so hungry that standing still is already fatal. By the time you notice, it’s over. You were never going to be replaced by AI. You were going to be erased by someone it made hungrier than you.

Dustin

12,200 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sh*t Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sh*t.”

David Friedberg: The AI Jobs Panic Is a Crock of Sht Why? The revenue potential outweighs the cost savings by 100x. “There is no job loss with AI. I've said it a thousand times, and I will say it again, and again, and again. What I see on the ground, and what I've seen at dozens of companies, including my company that I run, there are two sides to a business. There is revenue and there’s costs. On the cost side of the equation, AI can be used to reduce humans doing things that cost money, to some extent. The effect there, I would argue, is nominal. The real opportunity with AI is on the revenue side, where suddenly one engineer can do 100x or 1000x what they used to be able to do, meaning you can make more products at your company, whether those are agricultural seed products, or boats and ships, or software for companies, or clothing, or what have you. Because of AI, everyone has the ability to expand their revenue base to create more products, and that is the foundation of good economic prosperity. It is called productivity. We can grow productivity in this country with AI. So where I see AI being used is on the revenue side 100x more than the cost side. And in that equation, people are hiring like crazy. We cannot hire enough people. I just had a review meeting with my product and engineering team two days ago, and they're like, ‘We want to add an extra 15 headcount to our engineering squads because we have all this opportunity to do stuff that we couldn't otherwise do.’ So we are going to hire more people. And to Sacks' point, we are seeing that show up in the jobs numbers. The idea that AI is going to destroy jobs is a Luddite idea that is being disproven every single day, and I see it on the ground. It is only a matter of time before people wake up to this and they realize that this narrative that they've all been sold is a crock of sht.”

The All-In Podcast

152,225 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$🚨 WARNING: SOMETHING VERY WIERD IS HAPPENING. The S&P 500 keeps printing new highs. Everyone is celebrating. Nobody is looking at what's actually holding it up. Semiconductor stocks are now worth $13.4 trillion. 19.7% of the entire index. Five years ago that number was closer to 5%. It quadrupled in a single cycle on a single bet. AI. And here's the number that should concern everyone. AI chips generate 50% of all semiconductor revenue. They represent less than 0.2% of total chip shipments. Half the revenue, a fraction of the volume, trillions in market cap sitting on top of a sliver of actual production. Three companies are carrying all of it. Nvidia. Broadcom. TSMC. The same names in every major institutional portfolio simultaneously. Everyone owns them, nobody can afford to be the first one out. And the way the money moves inside this system should sound familiar. Big players fund AI startups. AI startups spend that money on Big Tech infrastructure. Big Tech reports record AI revenue. Valuations justify the next round, the same dollar completes the loop and gets counted as growth every time. We watched this exact dynamic play out once before. 2000. A handful of tech companies carried the entire market. Valuations made no sense, narratives did the work that fundamentals couldn't. Then one company missed earnings, then another, then the S&P lost 50% and the Nasdaq lost 78%. The current setup is more concentrated, the valuations are more extreme. And one cut in AI spending is all it takes to start the unwind. I called the $16K Bitcoin bottom. I called the $126K top. Every major turn for 15 years public, before the move. The next call is already forming. Follow now and turn on notifications, you'll understand why that matters sooner than you think.$

🚨 WARNING: SOMETHING VERY WIERD IS HAPPENING. The S&P 500 keeps printing new highs. Everyone is celebrating. Nobody is looking at what's actually holding it up. Semiconductor stocks are now worth $13.4 trillion. 19.7% of the entire index. Five years ago that number was closer to 5%. It quadrupled in a single cycle on a single bet. AI. And here's the number that should concern everyone. AI chips generate 50% of all semiconductor revenue. They represent less than 0.2% of total chip shipments. Half the revenue, a fraction of the volume, trillions in market cap sitting on top of a sliver of actual production. Three companies are carrying all of it. Nvidia. Broadcom. TSMC. The same names in every major institutional portfolio simultaneously. Everyone owns them, nobody can afford to be the first one out. And the way the money moves inside this system should sound familiar. Big players fund AI startups. AI startups spend that money on Big Tech infrastructure. Big Tech reports record AI revenue. Valuations justify the next round, the same dollar completes the loop and gets counted as growth every time. We watched this exact dynamic play out once before. 2000. A handful of tech companies carried the entire market. Valuations made no sense, narratives did the work that fundamentals couldn't. Then one company missed earnings, then another, then the S&P lost 50% and the Nasdaq lost 78%. The current setup is more concentrated, the valuations are more extreme. And one cut in AI spending is all it takes to start the unwind. I called the $16K Bitcoin bottom. I called the $126K top. Every major turn for 15 years public, before the move. The next call is already forming. Follow now and turn on notifications, you'll understand why that matters sooner than you think.

Hanzo ㊗️

18,356 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Marc Benioff just exposed the biggest hypocrisy in the AI boom. The companies building the AI that’s supposed to kill software are some of Salesforce’s largest customers. Benioff: “The AI companies love our products and they can’t buy enough of them. They’re some of our largest customers now: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Amazon, you name it.” Let that land. The most advanced AI labs on earth. The companies with more engineering talent and compute than anyone. The ones building the technology that analysts say will make traditional software obsolete. Still buying traditional software. At scale. Benioff: “No one has a company that’s running entirely on a large language model because it’s not real.” Not because they haven’t tried. Because an LLM is not a foundation. It’s a feature. Benioff: “Yeah, Minority Report, I watched the movie. Great guys, fantastic. But I’m in the present-moment reality right now. We’re living in this world. This is 2026.” The analysts writing reports about fully autonomous AI companies have never had to run one. Benioff is running one of the largest enterprise software companies on earth. The gap between those two perspectives is where billions of dollars are being misallocated. Benioff: “How are we doing our financials, our HR, our customer information? How are we doing all of these aspects of our business?” A neural network that hallucinates cannot execute a financial transaction that has to be right every single time. Cannot secure customer data with zero tolerance for error. Cannot provide the determinism that every real business runs on. Benioff: “We need the determinism, and the programmability, and the security, and the sharing.” AI doesn’t replace those requirements. It sits on top of them. Benioff: “I think the software industry is going to be bigger and broader and do more this year than ever before.” The future isn’t AI replacing software. It’s AI making software exponentially more powerful. The smartest people building the future already know this. They’re the ones still buying the software.

Marc Benioff just exposed the biggest hypocrisy in the AI boom. The companies building the AI that’s supposed to kill software are some of Salesforce’s largest customers. Benioff: “The AI companies love our products and they can’t buy enough of them. They’re some of our largest customers now: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Amazon, you name it.” Let that land. The most advanced AI labs on earth. The companies with more engineering talent and compute than anyone. The ones building the technology that analysts say will make traditional software obsolete. Still buying traditional software. At scale. Benioff: “No one has a company that’s running entirely on a large language model because it’s not real.” Not because they haven’t tried. Because an LLM is not a foundation. It’s a feature. Benioff: “Yeah, Minority Report, I watched the movie. Great guys, fantastic. But I’m in the present-moment reality right now. We’re living in this world. This is 2026.” The analysts writing reports about fully autonomous AI companies have never had to run one. Benioff is running one of the largest enterprise software companies on earth. The gap between those two perspectives is where billions of dollars are being misallocated. Benioff: “How are we doing our financials, our HR, our customer information? How are we doing all of these aspects of our business?” A neural network that hallucinates cannot execute a financial transaction that has to be right every single time. Cannot secure customer data with zero tolerance for error. Cannot provide the determinism that every real business runs on. Benioff: “We need the determinism, and the programmability, and the security, and the sharing.” AI doesn’t replace those requirements. It sits on top of them. Benioff: “I think the software industry is going to be bigger and broader and do more this year than ever before.” The future isn’t AI replacing software. It’s AI making software exponentially more powerful. The smartest people building the future already know this. They’re the ones still buying the software.

Dustin

203,575 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Microsoft just lost $357 billion in a single day... While Meta gained $170 billion. Both companies are spending over $100 billion on AI this year. One got punished. One got rewarded. The difference tells you everything about where this market is heading: Microsoft reported Wednesday. Beat on revenue. Beat on earnings. Revenue up 17%. EPS up 24%. But the stock dropped 10% - worst decline since March 2020. Why? Azure cloud growth came in at 39%. The Street wanted 39.4%. A miss of 0.4 percentage points erased a third of a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, capex jumped 89% year-over-year to $37.5B in a single quarter. CFO Amy Hood admitted two-thirds went to "short-lived assets" - GPUs that depreciate fast. And Microsoft also said they'll remain "capacity constrained through at least the end of our fiscal year." In other words: "We're spending $72B in six months and STILL can't build data centers fast enough." But that's not the real problem... The real problem is what's happening inside Microsoft's spending. They're not just building infrastructure for Azure customers. They're allocating scarce GPUs to their own products: M365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot, internal R&D. Hood said they must "balance Azure revenue growth with growing needs across first-party apps and AI solutions." Microsoft is competing with its own cloud customers for compute capacity. If they'd allocated all new GPUs to Azure, growth would've exceeded 40%. Instead, they're betting their own AI products will generate more value than selling raw compute. That bet hasn't paid off yet. And 45% of their $625B backlog is tied to ONE customer: OpenAI. Now compare that to Meta: Revenue beat. Earnings beat. Guidance crushed expectations. And they announced $115-135B in AI capex for 2026 - nearly DOUBLE what they spent in 2025. The stock surged 10%. Why the opposite reaction? Meta is seeing immediate returns. Ad impressions up 18%. Average price per ad up 6%. Revenue up 24% year-over-year. Their AI investment is already showing up in the core business TODAY. Better ad targeting. Better recommendations. Better engagement. Q1 revenue guidance came in at $53.5-56.5B - Wall Street expected $51.4B. That's 30% revenue growth ACCELERATION. When you have 3.58B daily active users, AI improvements compound immediately. Zuckerberg called it a "major AI acceleration" and Wall Street didn't care about the $135B spending number. Because they can SEE the connection between spending and revenue. Here's what matters: The hyperscalers are now spending over $600B combined on AI infrastructure in 2026. AI assets depreciate at roughly 20% per year. The five hyperscalers face annual depreciation expenses approaching $400B - MORE than their combined profits in 2025. This is the biggest capital spending cycle in history. And we just entered Phase 3, where AI-enabled revenue models must finally prove their worth. The market stopped rewarding spending. It's rewarding RETURNS. Meta showed returns. Microsoft showed constraints and margin compression. That's why we saw a $527B swing between two companies reporting on the same day. My read: The easy money in the AI trade is over. From here, execution matters more than ambition. Companies that can turn infrastructure spending into measurable productivity gains get rewarded. Companies still building without clear payback get punished - even when they beat estimates. Microsoft isn't a bad company. It's a company that bet big on AI infrastructure and is now scrambling to show ROI before margins collapse further. Meta isn't necessarily a better AI company. It just has a business model where AI improvements translate directly to revenue growth. For investors, the lesson is clear: The AI infrastructure phase is maturing. Winners from here will be companies with clear paths from spending to earnings. Not companies asking you to trust the process while margins compress.

Microsoft just lost $357 billion in a single day... While Meta gained $170 billion. Both companies are spending over $100 billion on AI this year. One got punished. One got rewarded. The difference tells you everything about where this market is heading: Microsoft reported Wednesday. Beat on revenue. Beat on earnings. Revenue up 17%. EPS up 24%. But the stock dropped 10% - worst decline since March 2020. Why? Azure cloud growth came in at 39%. The Street wanted 39.4%. A miss of 0.4 percentage points erased a third of a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, capex jumped 89% year-over-year to $37.5B in a single quarter. CFO Amy Hood admitted two-thirds went to "short-lived assets" - GPUs that depreciate fast. And Microsoft also said they'll remain "capacity constrained through at least the end of our fiscal year." In other words: "We're spending $72B in six months and STILL can't build data centers fast enough." But that's not the real problem... The real problem is what's happening inside Microsoft's spending. They're not just building infrastructure for Azure customers. They're allocating scarce GPUs to their own products: M365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot, internal R&D. Hood said they must "balance Azure revenue growth with growing needs across first-party apps and AI solutions." Microsoft is competing with its own cloud customers for compute capacity. If they'd allocated all new GPUs to Azure, growth would've exceeded 40%. Instead, they're betting their own AI products will generate more value than selling raw compute. That bet hasn't paid off yet. And 45% of their $625B backlog is tied to ONE customer: OpenAI. Now compare that to Meta: Revenue beat. Earnings beat. Guidance crushed expectations. And they announced $115-135B in AI capex for 2026 - nearly DOUBLE what they spent in 2025. The stock surged 10%. Why the opposite reaction? Meta is seeing immediate returns. Ad impressions up 18%. Average price per ad up 6%. Revenue up 24% year-over-year. Their AI investment is already showing up in the core business TODAY. Better ad targeting. Better recommendations. Better engagement. Q1 revenue guidance came in at $53.5-56.5B - Wall Street expected $51.4B. That's 30% revenue growth ACCELERATION. When you have 3.58B daily active users, AI improvements compound immediately. Zuckerberg called it a "major AI acceleration" and Wall Street didn't care about the $135B spending number. Because they can SEE the connection between spending and revenue. Here's what matters: The hyperscalers are now spending over $600B combined on AI infrastructure in 2026. AI assets depreciate at roughly 20% per year. The five hyperscalers face annual depreciation expenses approaching $400B - MORE than their combined profits in 2025. This is the biggest capital spending cycle in history. And we just entered Phase 3, where AI-enabled revenue models must finally prove their worth. The market stopped rewarding spending. It's rewarding RETURNS. Meta showed returns. Microsoft showed constraints and margin compression. That's why we saw a $527B swing between two companies reporting on the same day. My read: The easy money in the AI trade is over. From here, execution matters more than ambition. Companies that can turn infrastructure spending into measurable productivity gains get rewarded. Companies still building without clear payback get punished - even when they beat estimates. Microsoft isn't a bad company. It's a company that bet big on AI infrastructure and is now scrambling to show ROI before margins collapse further. Meta isn't necessarily a better AI company. It just has a business model where AI improvements translate directly to revenue growth. For investors, the lesson is clear: The AI infrastructure phase is maturing. Winners from here will be companies with clear paths from spending to earnings. Not companies asking you to trust the process while margins compress.

George Noble

120,284 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

$This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.$

This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.

Ricardo

1,814,969 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.

Elon Musk just explained why the SpaceX IPO is an energy story and the energy constraint is why he believes space becomes the only viable path for AI to scale (Save this). The argument he is making is one of the most important and least understood things happening in technology right now. The United States currently consumes roughly 500 gigawatts of electricity on average. To double that capacity which is what continued AI expansion on the current terrestrial trajectory would eventually require would mean building as many power plants as currently exist in the entire country. He is not arguing that this is technically impossible, just that communities are not willing to accept it, that permitting timelines make it unrealistic, and that the hard ceiling on Earth based power generation means the expansion of AI compute will eventually hit a wall that no amount of capital can overcome on the ground. His observation is that in space, that wall does not exist. A solar panel in orbit produces roughly five times more power than the same panel on Earth, operates in continuous sunlight uninterrupted by weather or nighttime, and benefits from the vacuum of space as a completely passive cooling system meaning the two largest operating costs of any terrestrial data center, energy and cooling, are effectively eliminated. He then said that you could theoretically increase harnessed energy by a factor of one million and still be using less than a millionth of the sun's total energy output. This is the underlying physics of why SpaceX filed with the FCC to launch up to one million solar powered AI satellites, and why they described that constellation in their own filing as a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization capable of harnessing the full power of the sun. To understand what makes this credible rather than visionary, you need to understand what SpaceX already controls that no other company on earth possesses. Starship, once operating at full cadence, can deliver 100 to 150 tons of payload to orbit per launch, at a target cost per kilogram that is an order of magnitude lower than any existing vehicle. Musk's stated ambition is to scale Starship to 10,000 to 30,000 launches per year, a frequency that would allow the deployment of orbital compute infrastructure at a pace that is currently unimaginable with any existing rocket. He told xAI staff earlier this year that achieving space-based AI at scale will eventually require manufacturing facilities on the moon, building solar panels and heat dissipation structures from lunar silicon and aluminum, and launching them into orbit from there rather than from Earth's surface because the moon's lower gravity makes the economics of launch dramatically more favorable. SpaceX's S-1 filing explicitly states that its launch capabilities could enable massive AI compute satellite constellations with the potential for millions of satellites for orbital data centers, with the first launch potentially occurring as soon as 2028. Google and Alphabet are already in advanced talks with SpaceX about deploying space-based data centers. Starcloud, a startup running Nvidia H100 GPUs in orbit, has already validated that high-performance AI inference workloads can operate in space, with plans to scale to five gigawatts of orbital compute power by 2035. This is why Musk believes the cost crossover happens in two to three years because SpaceX's launch cost trajectory intersects with the accelerating energy constraint on the ground in a way that makes space genuinely cheaper, faster, and less regulated at exactly the moment AI demand is hitting its hardest physical limits.

Milk Road AI

12,140 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

.David Sacks: Trump’s AI Policies Could Fuel U.S. Economic Growth to 4%-5% "What you're seeing is that the adoption of AI applications is the fastest adoption curve we've ever seen. I think it's bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the internet itself, potentially. This technology is being adopted very, very fast by consumers and businesses, and I think it's going to fuel the growth of the American economy for years to come. I think we can get back to those 4 to 5% growth rates with AI as a tailwind. Again, it's facilitating major investment, major innovation, and I think President Trump has already helped facilitate this. He rescinded that 100-page Biden executive order on AI, which burdened AI companies with unnecessary regulation. We rescinded that 200-page rule that burdened semiconductor companies and data center companies with unnecessary regulation. President Trump is leading and he's driving the growth and the innovation, and it's a very different approach than we saw with the Biden administration. The Biden administration really was motivated and proceeded from a position of fear. It was, 'How can the government restrict this? This thing is so risky that we need to control it.' Whereas, I think the Trump administration is proceeding from a position of opportunity, which is, 'How do we take advantage of this technology? How do we drive the growth? How do we drive the investment?' Thanks to President Trump, you are seeing this boom, this novelty that started, and I think it will be one of the most important parts of his legacy."

.David Sacks: Trump’s AI Policies Could Fuel U.S. Economic Growth to 4%-5% "What you're seeing is that the adoption of AI applications is the fastest adoption curve we've ever seen. I think it's bigger than the iPhone, bigger than the internet itself, potentially. This technology is being adopted very, very fast by consumers and businesses, and I think it's going to fuel the growth of the American economy for years to come. I think we can get back to those 4 to 5% growth rates with AI as a tailwind. Again, it's facilitating major investment, major innovation, and I think President Trump has already helped facilitate this. He rescinded that 100-page Biden executive order on AI, which burdened AI companies with unnecessary regulation. We rescinded that 200-page rule that burdened semiconductor companies and data center companies with unnecessary regulation. President Trump is leading and he's driving the growth and the innovation, and it's a very different approach than we saw with the Biden administration. The Biden administration really was motivated and proceeded from a position of fear. It was, 'How can the government restrict this? This thing is so risky that we need to control it.' Whereas, I think the Trump administration is proceeding from a position of opportunity, which is, 'How do we take advantage of this technology? How do we drive the growth? How do we drive the investment?' Thanks to President Trump, you are seeing this boom, this novelty that started, and I think it will be one of the most important parts of his legacy."

Josh Caplan

126,513 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr