Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#431

Post by BLKNSLVR »

uxhacker wrote: post #218
embedding-shape wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is xAI? I thought that was the company that had the compute + Grok, the AI company? Since when does SpaceX (which I thought was a space company?) own AI-compute hardware and/or can do model hosting? Are all of Musks companies just one big thing now where the names no longer matter, or how is it supposed to work? Edit: seems I'm just a bit behind: "xAI — now part of SpaceX ", seems really strange for a space…

I think some justify it as SpaceX plans to offer hosting in space, and then use Starlink to distribute it.

That's what the IPO salesman and pamphlet said anyway.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#433

Post by BLKNSLVR »

cityzen wrote: post #236
embedding-shape wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 4-5 companies instead of one then? I thought the goal of SpaceX was to get to Mars, why does xAI need to have that same goal? Or he didn't think xAI was suitable for that goal, then changed his mind so merged the companies?

He’s a drug addict and sociopath. Also has very thin skin (and hair) so he does stupid shit. Somehow we are all left holding the bag on his BS.

And Africa is left holding a larger bag of Ebola.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#434

Post by BLKNSLVR »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #367
Rover222 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with Grok, at least not the current iteration. SpaceX is the only company that can concievably launch large scale orbital compute.

I’m out of the loop, why is compute better /after/ being launched into space? Is the idea just to be co-located within the ISP to reduce round trip time to the LLMs?

Grokipedia would be way better launched into space.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#435

Post by positr0n »

GMoromisato wrote: post #392

SpaceX valuation and ultimate success depends on two things: 1. AI demand continues to grow. 2. SpaceX's orbital data centers are profitable. If both of those are true, then their current valuation is absolutely justified. I'm confident #1 will happen. #2 is the big bet, and IMHO this is just an engineering/execution problem. All they need is (a) Starship to work reliably, and (b) a manufacturing line that can build…

Even if I do accept your claims that cooling in space is not insurmountable, you still would grant that launching and cooling (and shielding??) a data center in space still cost more dollars than building a data center on earth right? What is the use case that people will spend money to rent servers in space? I think nations have a strong enough grip on the internet now that the customer use case of "evading my country's laws" won't generate that much revenue.

Is the hope that power will be cheaper because solar panels have direct and continuous exposure to the sun?

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#436

Post by l23k4 »

a2tech wrote: post #425
laughing_man wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those rule changes aren't happening.

My understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules.

Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them!

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#437

Post by AustinDev »

est31 wrote: post #164

These deals are part of how the AI economy operates. Amodei has explained this in his recent Patel podcast. 1. Building datacenters takes time. Months, if not years. They take billions of investment. 2. AI revenue is highly unpredictable. Sure, you can make predictions, but maybe your competitor releases a better model 2 weeks after your release, maybe the new model you built isn't as much better, maybe the chinese m…

> the GPUs aren't actually owned by SpaceX but a daughter company, and it's been financed via loans that are backed by pension funds. So it's already the case that pension funds back bear the risks associated with SpaceX's operations.

I think a more accurate phrasing of the Valor GPU deal would be something like this:

"SpaceX’s AI compute buildout relies in part on off-balance-sheet or lease-style financing vehicles. Valor-owned vehicles purchased Nvidia GPU infrastructure and leased it to xAI/SpaceX subsidiaries, with Apollo providing debt financing and SpaceX or subsidiaries guaranteeing some obligations. That creates indirect exposure for institutional and retirement capital, though not necessarily direct pension-fund ownership of SpaceX operational risk."

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#438

Post by l23k4 »

stogot wrote: post #370
BobbyJo wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.

The question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts?

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#439

Post by Lplololopo »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #372
raincole wrote: post #311

> If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier Yeah, if a ridiculous premise is given you'll reach a ridiculous result.

It's not that ridiculous considering these are the current facts on the ground.

The Facts: Tesla wasted billions for Cybertruck, hasn't had a new real model for years, promises Full Selfdriving without supervision for a decade and other companies are either on the same level or better.

xAI has such a shitty AI, that he makes more profit renting his Compute instead of making profit directly from it as the companies doing who have better AI then him.

Space-X is a limited business and he tries to make it unlimited by selling stories of Mars and dyson spheres (literaly), no one will ever finance or need as long as we have still desserts everywhere. In parallel his Starlink business gets competition left and right and despite this, he only has 10 Million customers AND increased prices for STarlink just last month or so.

And the payload, most payload increase is only Starlink. He has to sell us a story, that suddenly even with Starship, he can send so much payload up there to make Space-X this mega trillion company.

He can't even scale Starlink. Its expensive. The satelites work for 5 years and have limited capacity. He NEEDS Spaceship to be able to send up Starlink Server v3 and he hasn't even prooven he can get his ship back which he needs for the payload price.

Twitter/X? Yeah he tanked that one.

Optimus? When did you see the latest non faked demo? And while he works on it, we already have the market cornered here.

Post reply on HN