171–180 of 180 posts
The critiques of 'circular funding' don't really make sense to me. If you invest 20 billion and you get back 20 billion, your profit is the same. Sure your revenues look higher but investors have access to all that information and should be taking that into account, just like all the other financial data. Michael Burry is betting against AI growth translating into real profits as a whole, not the circular funding.
Circular thing is bad too but from a different angle, Imagine if the whole TPU vs GPU thing erodes Nvidia's moat and its profit margins compress. if that happens how long it can keep feeding the same unproductive 'pets.AI' type startups? one break in the narrative and tragedy of commons strikes. will it happen soon? anybody's guess but given Trump is at helm and there is going to be new Fed chief, I doubt it would be anywhere near soon. Definitely not before mid-terms are locked in.
Not a big fan of the circular observation. It's not the gotcha people seem to think. If the baker sells bread to the butcher, and the butcher sells meat to the baker then they can still both go to bed with a belly full of sandwich (aka actual utility & substance). Adding a third party to make it look more circle-y doesn't change that logic. Round trip financing is mostly an issue if it is artificial (e.g. a circle of…
You need something of substance exchanged, not just delivered. Nvidia hasn't gotten anything of substance from OpenAI yet.
I don't know shit about AI, but Nvidia could still give me $100b to buy their GPUs. Now I build a datacenter and Nvidia gets to claim $100b worth of sales AND a $100b stake in my datacenter. As I understand it, that's what's earning Nvidia all this side-eye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent. This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.
If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin? If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…
If you want to argue that the reasoning in the essay is incorrect, I do expect you to refute the reasoning instead of merely attacking the source.
The critiques of 'circular funding' don't really make sense to me. If you invest 20 billion and you get back 20 billion, your profit is the same. Sure your revenues look higher but investors have access to all that information and should be taking that into account, just like all the other financial data. Michael Burry is betting against AI growth translating into real profits as a whole, not the circular funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I haven't commented on HN in a while and didn't want to dig up my password. Throwaway accounts are a tradition. 2. I don't want people to see my disparagement of the quality of prose in this article as indication of personal agreement or disagreement with any of the points in the article. I have no horse in this race. I just want to read high-quality material. I love HN, but I'm not sure how much longer HN will be…
The problems with #2 and #3 are they are equally, if not more, valuable points to those wishing to hide their identity for nefarious reasons instead. I.e. that nameless "just makes you think, doesn't it" kind of farming. Identity (as in an account history) provides not only a community here, but easily rules out a lot of malicious wordsmithing concerns. Not that I place any of that on you in this case, just the gener…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The similarity in names is likely to Groq’s detriment.
Maybe, but they'd been operating under that name for 7 years before Elon came along and decided he needed a name for his model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems with #2 and #3 are they are equally, if not more, valuable points to those wishing to hide their identity for nefarious reasons instead. I.e. that nameless "just makes you think, doesn't it" kind of farming. Identity (as in an account history) provides not only a community here, but easily rules out a lot of malicious wordsmithing concerns. Not that I place any of that on you in this case, just the gener…
your comment is guideline breaking :)
On that note, if anyone ever suspects a certain account/comment set as actually being nefarious, the note to reach out to hn@ycombinator.com in the guidelines is no lip service - they really do look right into it and get back to you (often with speedy action about it too). It's by far the best action you can take to keep the community feeling in the comments when you think it's actually occuring!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the wrong analogy, because the butcher is giving money to the baker for the bread. If we we fix the analogy, then the baker gives money to the butcher so that he buys their bread with that money . The butcher cannot afford the bread without it!
>so that he buys their bread with that money. So basically like any business out there reliant on incoming cash to pay suppliers? This doesn't magically create money any more than the rest of the economy...which has believe it or not CIRCULATING money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Wash trading is about selling and then requiring the same asset for tax purposes. How is this analogous, other than that you presumably dislike both practices?
In crypto, wash trading usually refers to the practice of exchanges or project creators colluding to trade the same asset back and forth in order to make the volume/liquidity/popularity look greater than it is. - "Our coin hit $100M daily volume, get on this rocketship before it's too late!" - "Our exchange does $1B annually, so you know we're trustworthy!" - "Hey investors, look at the massive demand for our GPUs (d…
Its generating the facade of activity, the same.
You are right theres no public ledger for the wash trading, but the fact that the underlying real physical asset is NVIDIAs product, lends the same intentional activity: to leverage apparent markeet activity to inflate the value of assets.