This reminds me of around 2002 when I wrote an article looking at how all the web behemoths at the time were claiming profitability through ad sales, but actually the vast majority of ads were from one web behemoth advertising on an other's site and vice versa.
This is How Larry Elisson beat Musk for a short while although Oracle was struggling.' The deals among Oracle, Nvidia, and OpenAI have raised concerns about their circular and potentially risky nature. Oracle is reportedly spending tens of billions on Nvidia's advanced chips, Nvidia plans to invest up to $100 billion in OpenAI, and OpenAI uses Oracle's cloud infrastructure through Microsoft's Azure, creating a closed loop of financing and business. Some analysts warn this creates a reflexive loop or "dangerous bubble" where valuations may be inflated artificially by the circular flow of capital and resources, reminiscent of past booms that ended in sharp market corrections.
>By 1998, Yahoo was the beneficiary of a de facto Ponzi scheme. Investors were excited about the Internet. One reason they were excited was Yahoo's revenue growth. So they invested in new Internet startups. The startups then used the money to buy ads on Yahoo to get traffic. Which caused yet more revenue growth for Yahoo, and further convinced investors the Internet was worth investing in. When I realized this one day, sitting in my cubicle, I jumped up like Archimedes in his bathtub, except instead of "Eureka!" I was shouting "Sell!"
That's not how Ponzi schemes work. Yahoo had a defacto _monopoly_ and the market had bad discovery leading to bad price information. There was no point at which the internet was /not/ worth investing in and everyone who had experience with it knew that.
The real problem seemed to be that you can only put so much money into pets.com before it becomes stupid. You had more short term investment capital than could be _effectively_ spent at the time. The long term players, as usual, avoided the Archimedian idealism, and were heavily rewarded anyways.
But you can't fake profits that way (without cooking the books); you can only fake revenue. That's why profits matter.
Though I guess with high velocity of money circulating in tight loops, everyone involved can feel rich. 1 million dollars changing hands once per day can potentially mint 365 'millionaires' during the course of a year. If they just pass it back and forth among themselves to buy each other's stocks and products and don't let that money escape their network to actually pay for something useful, they can all be millionaires... On paper.
Not to mention how relatively small amounts of money, moving at high velocity, can inflate asset prices... On Alice's birthday, Bob can buy 100 shares of Alice's shell company at a price of $10 per share. If Alice owns 1 million shares of the company (which she founded), it means that Alice's net worth is at least $10 million... It cost Bob only $1000 to give Alice a net worth of $10 million. Now imagine that same $1000 moving in and out of that company's stock, traded 1000 times per day between various people. With just $1000 circulating back-and-forth at high frequency (A.K.A. high-frequency trading), you can generate a trade volume of $1 million per day... So it all seems reasonable; a company with a $10 million valuation with $1 million daily trade volume... Nothing suspicious. So you can basically start a shell company and fake everything; from the market cap, to the trade volume; using only a relatively small amount of money. This is what they were doing in the early days of crypto.
The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed... But the same money, as profit, can barely hop between 6 people before it's taxed down to just 10% of its original number. High-velocity revenue can severely distort people's perceptions of the market, especially in the era of media filter bubbles.
> it means that Alice's net worth is at least $10 million...
Some people might interpret or represent the aforementioned transaction as justification for thinking Alice's net worth is at least $10M, but it is not an objective measure of Alice's purchasing power (as it would be in the case that Alice had $10M cash).
>The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed
On the US federal level. Not sure about other countries, but quite a few other governments in the US do tax revenue.
>Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Washington impose gross receipts taxes instead of corporate income taxes. Delaware, Oregon, and Tennessee impose gross receipts taxes in addition to their corporate income taxes. Some localities in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia likewise impose gross receipts taxes, which are generally understood to be more economically harmful than corporate income taxes.
All clearly designed to cash in on the speculative value being given to AI companies.
Strategically I thought OpenAI's deal of getting 10% of AMD for driving their stock price to $600 was a pretty clever way of creating $97 Billion from nothing - effectively paying for the GPUs they'd purchase.
At the same time I would've thought this insider pump and cash-in strategy would be somehow illegal, but I guess anything goes with this administration.
These sorts of shenanigans happen under whatever administration happens to be in office at the end of a long business cycle and near the frothy peak of a hype cycle. And that frothy peak can be quite tall and last for years.
Just getting options and trying to get the company to do well isn't illegal or discouraged. Price manipulation can be illegal but I don't see any evidence of that so far.
This is going to end badly — and soon. It’s ironic that catastrophic forgetting (i.e., the inability to perform continuous learning) and hallucinations (i.e., the failure to recognize when a prediction is unfounded) won’t be the causes of the crash, but rather greed and stupidity.
I finally got around to watching that a year or two ago. That scene is among several that are just remarkable bits of work, but somehow the whole film itself felt like a slog.
I feel like that's the problem generally with late career Scorsese. The last of his films that felt consistently interesting and free of flab was, to me, Casino, though he got close for me with The Aviator and The Departed.
Agreed on TWoWS. Kind of loved every scene in the movie, but actually strongly dislike the movie in full. I also think that despite what seems like an attempt to critique the destructive lifestyle, it does the opposite and glorifies it. Mostly not a fan of his later career work, but I do really like Killers of the Flower Moon and Shutter Island.
This incest investing is pretty telling. The whole economy is about to get burned- doubly so with DJTs tariffs and bonds not looking like the safe haven they usually are during turbulent times.
“We’re now locked into a particular version of the market and the future where all roads lead to big tech,” says Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, which studies AI development and policy. Indeed, the success of major stock indexes—and perhaps your 401(k)—is resting on the continued growth of AI: Meta, Amazon, and the chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom have accounted for 60 percent of the S&P 500’s returns this year."
Anecdotally, many people at OpenAI, Nvidia, Oracle, etc., sincerely believe their company's own hype.
They remind me of the story about the oil prospector in Warren Buffett's year-end 1985 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders:
> An oil prospector, moving to his heavenly reward, was met by St. Peter with bad news. “You’re qualified for residence”, said St. Peter, “but, as you can see, the compound reserved for oil men is packed. There’s no way to squeeze you in.” After thinking a moment, the prospector asked if he might say just four words to the present occupants. That seemed harmless to St. Peter, so the prospector cupped his hands and yelled, “Oil discovered in hell.” Immediately the gate to the compound opened and all of the oil men marched out to head for the nether regions. Impressed, St. Peter invited the prospector to move in and make himself comfortable. The prospector paused. “No,” he said, “I think I’ll go along with the rest of the boys. There might be some truth to that rumor after all.”
>And so, you really
want every person to be able to have
their own dedicated GPU, right? So,
you're talking order of 10 billion GPUs
we're going to need. This deal we're
talking about, it's for millions of GPUs. Like, we're still three orders of
magnitude off of where we need to be. So
we're doing our best to provide compute
availability, but we're heading to this
world where the whole economy is powered
by compute... (15 min in)
If their compensation includes stock options, they have no choice but to believe. At Enron many employees went as far as to put 100% of their savings into buying the stock.
I notice that when I ask ChatGPT a question the answers I get back seem more verbose than they were a year ago. Where a 1-2 line response would be sufficient GPT delivers a sprawling essay. Overall the value of the answer has probably gone down, but tokens are up.
You can quite easily ask it to summarize the result in a sentence or paragraph. LLMs have no other way to compute than write text and the more text they write the more compute they do. You only care about the final output.
SBF lacked funds to ride it out. If they survived for a bit longer, Bitcoin would have surged and they'd keep going. AMD, Nvidia etc all have income and funds to survive.
This is just about finances unless you're implying there's some crime here too.
Readit News
>By 1998, Yahoo was the beneficiary of a de facto Ponzi scheme. Investors were excited about the Internet. One reason they were excited was Yahoo's revenue growth. So they invested in new Internet startups. The startups then used the money to buy ads on Yahoo to get traffic. Which caused yet more revenue growth for Yahoo, and further convinced investors the Internet was worth investing in. When I realized this one day, sitting in my cubicle, I jumped up like Archimedes in his bathtub, except instead of "Eureka!" I was shouting "Sell!"
The real problem seemed to be that you can only put so much money into pets.com before it becomes stupid. You had more short term investment capital than could be _effectively_ spent at the time. The long term players, as usual, avoided the Archimedian idealism, and were heavily rewarded anyways.
pg has startup brains.
Though I guess with high velocity of money circulating in tight loops, everyone involved can feel rich. 1 million dollars changing hands once per day can potentially mint 365 'millionaires' during the course of a year. If they just pass it back and forth among themselves to buy each other's stocks and products and don't let that money escape their network to actually pay for something useful, they can all be millionaires... On paper.
Not to mention how relatively small amounts of money, moving at high velocity, can inflate asset prices... On Alice's birthday, Bob can buy 100 shares of Alice's shell company at a price of $10 per share. If Alice owns 1 million shares of the company (which she founded), it means that Alice's net worth is at least $10 million... It cost Bob only $1000 to give Alice a net worth of $10 million. Now imagine that same $1000 moving in and out of that company's stock, traded 1000 times per day between various people. With just $1000 circulating back-and-forth at high frequency (A.K.A. high-frequency trading), you can generate a trade volume of $1 million per day... So it all seems reasonable; a company with a $10 million valuation with $1 million daily trade volume... Nothing suspicious. So you can basically start a shell company and fake everything; from the market cap, to the trade volume; using only a relatively small amount of money. This is what they were doing in the early days of crypto.
The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed... But the same money, as profit, can barely hop between 6 people before it's taxed down to just 10% of its original number. High-velocity revenue can severely distort people's perceptions of the market, especially in the era of media filter bubbles.
Under GAAP (normal accounting) A has a profit.
In reality are they profiting? Who knows - it depends how A does as a business.
Some people might interpret or represent the aforementioned transaction as justification for thinking Alice's net worth is at least $10M, but it is not an objective measure of Alice's purchasing power (as it would be in the case that Alice had $10M cash).
>The same money can hop around in circles between an insane number of people when it's just 'revenue' because revenue is not taxed (after expenses). Only profits are taxed
On the US federal level. Not sure about other countries, but quite a few other governments in the US do tax revenue.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-corporate-inc...
>Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Washington impose gross receipts taxes instead of corporate income taxes. Delaware, Oregon, and Tennessee impose gross receipts taxes in addition to their corporate income taxes. Some localities in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia likewise impose gross receipts taxes, which are generally understood to be more economically harmful than corporate income taxes.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_receipts_tax
Strategically I thought OpenAI's deal of getting 10% of AMD for driving their stock price to $600 was a pretty clever way of creating $97 Billion from nothing - effectively paying for the GPUs they'd purchase.
At the same time I would've thought this insider pump and cash-in strategy would be somehow illegal, but I guess anything goes with this administration.
Deleted Comment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4iBdIq0aaY
I think it serves as a good commentary.
I feel like that's the problem generally with late career Scorsese. The last of his films that felt consistently interesting and free of flab was, to me, Casino, though he got close for me with The Aviator and The Departed.
Amazing actor.
“We’re now locked into a particular version of the market and the future where all roads lead to big tech,” says Amba Kak, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, which studies AI development and policy. Indeed, the success of major stock indexes—and perhaps your 401(k)—is resting on the continued growth of AI: Meta, Amazon, and the chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom have accounted for 60 percent of the S&P 500’s returns this year."
They remind me of the story about the oil prospector in Warren Buffett's year-end 1985 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders:
> An oil prospector, moving to his heavenly reward, was met by St. Peter with bad news. “You’re qualified for residence”, said St. Peter, “but, as you can see, the compound reserved for oil men is packed. There’s no way to squeeze you in.” After thinking a moment, the prospector asked if he might say just four words to the present occupants. That seemed harmless to St. Peter, so the prospector cupped his hands and yelled, “Oil discovered in hell.” Immediately the gate to the compound opened and all of the oil men marched out to head for the nether regions. Impressed, St. Peter invited the prospector to move in and make himself comfortable. The prospector paused. “No,” he said, “I think I’ll go along with the rest of the boys. There might be some truth to that rumor after all.”
Source: https://berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1985.html
Here's them 2 weeks ago being interviewed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVBzsg3yCK4&t=40s
Also Brockman:
>And so, you really want every person to be able to have their own dedicated GPU, right? So, you're talking order of 10 billion GPUs we're going to need. This deal we're talking about, it's for millions of GPUs. Like, we're still three orders of magnitude off of where we need to be. So we're doing our best to provide compute availability, but we're heading to this world where the whole economy is powered by compute... (15 min in)
Is actually laughable.
If token usage declines because of high prices, look at what happened to SBF.
SBF lacked funds to ride it out. If they survived for a bit longer, Bitcoin would have surged and they'd keep going. AMD, Nvidia etc all have income and funds to survive.
This is just about finances unless you're implying there's some crime here too.
Yes and then maybe he'd never have been arrested and jailed for all his crimes.