Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE TO PROVE THE AI BUBBLE Claude AI developer Anthropic is valued at nearly $965B, while making only $20B in revenue. For comparison: Walmart is worth nearly the same amount ($940B), but makes $725B in revenue. Let that sink in. Same valuation range. Completely different...

14,835 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Bloomberg warns that China’s AI price war may make profitability difficult for years. They should be more worried about Wall Street. If the price war continues, the real casualty may not be AI. It may be the entire valuation structure built around it. OpenAI and Anthropic are valued as though frontier intelligence will remain scarce, expensive, and capable of producing software-like margins. Hyperscalers are spending hundreds of billions on infrastructure based on that assumption. Nvidia’s valuation depends on those capital expenditures continuing for years. But Chinese models are driving token prices toward commodity levels. Usage can explode while revenue per token collapses. The servers become busier. The models become cheaper. The profits fail to appear. Nvidia has real revenue and real margins, so it is not the weakest link. But even Nvidia is priced on the belief that today’s extraordinary AI capital expenditure will remain economically justified. If cheaper models, better efficiency, and open weights destroy the expected returns on that infrastructure, Wall Street will not merely reprice OpenAI and Anthropic. It will reprice the entire AI chain. America built the AI bubble on Nvidia. Nvidia built its empire on TSMC. Taiwan built its economic security around TSMC. If Chinese efficiency destroys the economics of brute-force AI, the repricing will not stop in Silicon Valley. It will cross the Pacific and land in Hsinchu. AI may continue transforming the world while the AI bubble collapses. The internet survived 2000. The valuations did not.

𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦

13,953 Aufrufe • vor 28 Tagen

What if the AI boom is not just a technology race, but a capital machine hiding in plain sight? The deeper I look at this ecosystem, the less it feels like a messy market and the more it looks like a closed financial loop. That is what makes this so striking. → Big Tech funds AI labs and infrastructure → AI labs and cloud players buy chips, GPUs, and networking → Model companies license capabilities back to the same giants funding the buildout What looks complicated is, in many ways, brutally simple. A money machine. And right now, that machine is being priced as if demand, revenue, and adoption will keep compounding with very little friction. That is the part I find most fascinating. Because the numbers are not just big. They are staggering. → Microsoft has invested more than $13B into OpenAI since 2019 → Oracle signed a $300B data centre capacity deal tied to OpenAI through 2029 → Meta is racing from roughly 150,000 NVIDIA GPUs in 2023 to around 1.3 million by the end of 2025 → Broadcom’s AI chip revenue is projected to jump from $3.8B in 2023 to $40B by 2026 What really stands out to me is how concentrated this loop has become. NVIDIA gets paid by nearly everyone. Infrastructure providers benefit early. AI companies are still betting on future monetization. Maybe it works. But that is the real question. Are we looking at durable economics, or one of the most elegantly circular bets the tech world has ever built? Do you think this AI capital loop is sustainable, or are we watching a beautifully engineered cycle that still has to prove itself? #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #OpenAI #NVIDIA #Microsoft #Infrastructure #DataCenters #Investing #BusinessStrategy #Innovation

Pascal Bornet

13,686 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

When asked about whether AI stocks are priced too high, Jeremy Siegel said: "I think the biggest risk in AI investing is not whether it will work or not, but can it be done more cheaply?” Firstly, Siegel is a professor at the Wharton School of Business and has been analyzing markets for decades. His point is AI will work and transform the economy—there’s no doubt in this. The real risk is whether tech companies are spending too much ($1 trillion) on data centers to power AI. He pointed to a historical example: During the dot-com boom in the late 1990s, telecom companies laid thousands of miles of fiber optic cables across the country. They spent BILLIONS doing this. Then engineers discovered multiplexing—a way to send a thousand times more data through the same cables. Suddenly, all that infrastructure spending was unnecessary, contributing to the inevitable crash. Siegel is suggesting something similar could happen with AI. What if someone figures out how to run AI much more efficiently? The technology might work perfectly, but the current approach could be massively overbuilt. PS - Siegel covers this in more detail on his interview with CNBC. If you'd like to watch this to learn: - The 3 reasons why AI will transform the world just like the internet did in 90s - Why the biggest risk right now is if it can run more efficiently - How to position yourself when the inevitable crash happens RT and comment "SIEGEL" and I'll DM it to you immediately.

Felix Prehn 🐶

88,093 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Jonathan Ross just revealed why AI companies aren’t growing faster. Not demand. Not competition. Physics. Ross: “The demand for compute is insatiable.” There isn’t enough compute in the world. Not a temporary shortage. A fundamental gap between what the market wants and what the infrastructure can deliver. Ross: “Right now, one of the biggest complaints of Anthropic is the rate limits. People can’t get enough tokens.” Rate limits aren’t product decisions. They’re rationing. Companies forced to regulate access because infrastructure cannot meet demand. Slower services. Token caps. The only things standing between these companies and a revenue surge they can’t access. Every token cap is a revenue cap. Every slowdown is a sale that didn’t happen. Ross: “If Anthropic was given twice the inference compute, within one month their revenue would almost double.” Read that again. Double the compute. Double the revenue. Within thirty days. That’s not a growth projection. That’s a measurement of how deep the backlog already is. The demand exists right now. It’s sitting in a queue. The only thing between these companies and that revenue is physical hardware they don’t have. This breaks every assumption about how tech companies scale. Usually you scale by finding customers. AI companies have infinite customers. They scale by finding hardware. The constraint isn’t market fit. It isn’t distribution. It isn’t competition. It’s processing power. This is why Jensen Huang is the most important person in the world right now. NVIDIA doesn’t just make chips. It makes the thing every government, every AI lab, and every company racing for this future needs more of and can’t get enough of. The compute bottleneck isn’t a tech industry problem. It’s a civilizational one. The winner of this era isn’t determined by who builds the smartest model. Every major lab has a frontier model. The winner is whoever secures the most compute fastest while everyone else rations what’s left. The race isn’t for intelligence. It’s for infrastructure. And right now there isn’t enough to go around.

Dustin

28,395 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

OpenAI spent $34 billion in 2025 and posted an operating loss of nearly $21 billion. Many times on the show, I’ve heard how AI is going to become the most valuable technology in human history. But when I saw those spending figures, I had to ask a very different question: do the underlying economics actually support the story we’re being told? So I brought in Ed Zitron. Ed is a technology writer, researcher and one of the most outspoken critics of the current AI boom. He writes 'Where’s Your Ed At', hosts the 'Better Offline' podcast and spends an extraordinary amount of time digging through company financials, infrastructure spending and the relationships between some of the biggest companies in Silicon Valley. His argument isn’t that AI is useless. His argument is that we’ve blurred the line between what these products can do today and the financial expectations we've placed on them. We discussed things like: - Why he believes OpenAI could become the centre of a much bigger financial problem. - The enormous amount of money being spent on data centres and whether the demand exists to justify it. - How money can move between AI companies, chip companies and cloud providers in ways that make the industry appear healthier than it might really be. - What could happen to markets, jobs and ordinary investors if the economics eventually stop working. I’ve had many conversations about how powerful AI could become, but this conversation forced me to look much more closely at the balance sheets underneath the hype. When trillions of dollars, massive global infrastructure and our economic futures are pinned to one narrative, we have to listen to the person standing on the other side of the room asking if the numbers add up. Whether Ed turns out to be right or wrong, these are questions everyone paying attention to AI needs to hear. Out now on all platforms ❤️👊🏾

Steven Bartlett

40,584 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

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

1,816,013 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten