Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

https://www.businessinsider.com/big-short-michael-burry-spacex-anthropic-ipo-ai-bubble-claude-2026-6

by mgh2 • 2 months ago

134 155 2 months ago

beernet• 2 months ago

AI doomers really are punching the air these days.

They will be right eventually and inevitably. Until then, it's funny watching them build a personal "brand" just to say "I told you so" when the market drops in X years.

epolanski3• 2 months ago

He didn't say AI is doomed or a fluke, he said that these two AI companies aren't worth 1T in capitalization.

The same way semiconductor, internet or railroad companies were not great investments regardless of how important the technology was going to be. It's still a financial investment and it's only going to pay off if bought at the right price, not at crazy multiples.

I will also add: if all your moat is your latest model, you're as good as your latest model and can be easily dethroned.

Strong moats are monopoly-like concessions (Verisign), exclusive technological edge (ASML), brands (Coca Cola), etc.

alexpotato• 2 months ago

brands (Coca Cola), etc.

Paul Graham doesn't think so

https://paulgraham.com/brandage.html

hparadiz3• 2 months ago

Anthropic is the one company where that makes no sense. If revenue really is about 50 billion annually and growing than that means that a 20x 1 year of revenue valuation is modest compared to the shenanigans that have been going in the market. It's almost classically textbook conservative in comparison. The moat with these corporate enterprise contracts is literally your conversation history and companies aren't likely to jump ship when everyone likes the tools so long as costs stay nominal. AI at most orgs isn't even the biggest line item.

mschuster914• 2 months ago

Strong moats are monopoly-like concessions (Verisign), exclusive technological edge (ASML), brands (Coca Cola), etc.

Agreed with the exception of Verisign. Many a "security" company went bust like DigiNotar after mishaps or hacks. Being a globally trusted root CA or DNS operator is a strong moat - but also an incredibly brittle one.

And brands... brands aren't as safe as we thought either, as "store brands"/"private labels" are taking up more and more market share [1].

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/shoppers-are-tradi...

monooso3• 2 months ago

Your comment suggests that you (1) didn't read the article, and (2) have no idea who Michael Burry is.

toasty228• 2 months ago

Being an AI enthusiast doesn't mean you have to say "yes my lord" to every coked-up delusions dario, musk and altman decide to regurgitate today. This feels more and more like football team shenanigans, or even a cult.

dansmith1919• 2 months ago

bro was right ONCE and now every tweet is a headline

mschuster914• 2 months ago

He's still right this time.

Neither Anthropic, Open AI nor SpaceX in its current form is a good candidate for an IPO at valuations that all but guarantee hundreds of billions of dollars in "passive capital" aka pension funds and ETFs will have to buy in.

SpaceX might have been a candidate on its own core business (aka: launching spacecraft and Starlink), but ever since the weird side deals with all of the other companies in the Muskverse (Twitter, xAI, Tesla) it is far too contaminated.

Sooner or later the AI bubble will burst - and assuming that the pension funds and ETFs buy in as projected, they stand to lose a lot of money that will make Covid's first lockdown + dotcom + 2007 Lehman combined look pale.

potatototoo992• 2 months ago

Elon must be looking to merge the new amalgamation of SPCX into TSLA and join all his sinking ships in one. Starlink itself won't be able to save that, but make it too big and the government might. That is the way to get to the ridiculous valuations needed for Elon's pay package.

cmsj• 2 months ago

True, but the VC money will have been paid back, and what are we if not meat for the soulless machine of capitalism?

helsinkiandrew3• 2 months ago

He's been wrong a few times, but has been right far more than ONCE and appears to be profitably making decisions. For example:

Short dot.com stocks (55% return), short subprime mortgages (Massive return), long Gamestop 2019, short ARKK 2021, The shorts on Palantir and NVDA are probably still running (PLTR 25% in profit, NVDA 20% loss).

turtlesdown11• 2 months ago

long Gamestop 2019

So he really relies on zero fundamental analysis these days

mellosouls• 2 months ago

It was a hell of a once tho

IAmBroom4• 2 months ago

So, a lottery winner.

blitzar• 2 months ago

Its frustrating; you grind out a living making consistent solid double digit returns for investors and all anyone talks about is a guy who made 5bn for their investors 20 years ago and has lost 25bn for them since.

lifty• 2 months ago

It’s very risky to make these kind of claims. If the denominator (USD) gets obliterated they might very well be worth $1T. It’s all about liquidity and central banks have a whole bag of tricks at their disposal. They never want to see deflation shocks again and they prefer asset inflation.

monooso3• 2 months ago

That seems like a hollow win.

conorcleary• 2 months ago

Yea, the rest of us run on timestamps.

pu_pe• 2 months ago

The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore. So, in some sense, it is immaterial that the rosy scenarios where AI is responsible for >$30 trillion in the next decade are unlikely. If you bet against the hype and it goes on for a few more months/years you lose as much or more than if you went along for the ride.

Burry is well aware of this, he has written about how passive investing is contributing to this problem.

A_D_E_P_T2• 2 months ago

The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore.

It has been broken since ~2008 (ZIRPs, etc.) and has really gone off the rails since BTC and memestocks have taken off. Now everything's a memestock. It's all vibes-based.

fireflash38• 2 months ago

People have seen others make insane, life changing money at this slot machine and are wanting to take their chances.

There are no fundamentals.

There is very low signal to the noise.

maeln• 2 months ago

I don't think there is a single thing that explain the absolute joke that is the current market. Algorithmic trading, high-frequency trading, deregulation, passive investment, “finance” influencer pump and dumping ... But in general, I do believe it has the same issues that you can say about anything these days. It's not like those things didn't exist into a form or another in the past, but it's just so, so much faster these days.

To make a parallel, it's not like disinformation didn't exist in the past, but nowadays with social media, llms and image gen tools and a few armies of bots, you can spread whatever bullshit you want at lightning speed.

dgllghr• 2 months ago

The Stock Market of the Spectacle

bdcravens2• 2 months ago

Honestly you can go back much further than that. Every few years it's broken for different reasons, but the exuberance is irrational all the same.

martinclayton4• 2 months ago

(Agreeing with you) In the 1980s Gary Shilling said:

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

A long-term principle that I think does still apply.

throwfaraway42• 2 months ago

The extent to which you’re exposed to long term principles is directly related to the time you’re in the market. Ie trader vs investor

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine”

- benjamin graham

rchaud• 2 months ago

Graham died back when stocks were traded by guys shouting orders from a pit. High frequency trading was decades away, as was Wall Street's push for:

- creative accounting (Enron, Worldcom)

- zero-interest rate policy

- SPAC IPOs

- exotic securitization (credit default swaps)

...that made valuation more opaque over time. The age of value investing is long gone.

bumby5• 2 months ago

Can you elaborate on how passive investing contributes to this?

ghtbircshotbe• 2 months ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33493662

mschuster914• 2 months ago

Simple. Most "passive investors" are ETFs and pension funds that sometimes by law, sometimes by statute/sales prospect are limited to being low-risk, i.e. the monthly contributions go towards "safe" asset classes, and in addition retail customers prefer low-fee (and thus low-management) funds.

That in turn means that a lot of the invested money goes towards ultra-safe stuff like government bonds, which is about the only thing keeping the US government afloat (if there is always a healthy amount of buyers, you can go into debt no matter if it is sustainable), and what remains of the hundreds of billions of dollars that flow into these funds each month (and [1] is just pension funds, not 401k and other forms of privately-held retirement assets) and is not earmarked for such safe asset classes spills onto the ordinary stock market, i.e. S&P 500, NASDAQ et al.

And here comes the trap with low-fee investment funds... when the ETF or pension fund's policy is "we'll track NASDAQ 100" and SpaceX enters NASDAQ 100, they have no choice than to shift billions of dollars worth of assets into SpaceX at whatever is the market price at that point. No matter if the fund managers think that the valuation is excessive, if SpaceX has a long term viable business strategy, nothing can prevent this.

To make it worse: once in NASDAQ 100, you as a company have no incentive to behave. You cannot be punished by free-market means (aka going under), simply because your inclusion in the NASDAQ 100 means that any significant loss in value would wipe out way too much value in pension funds.

The US' idea to completely tie pensions to the stock market will fry the US economy alive. We've already seen this during and past Covid... first, lockdowns got relaxed because it fried the stock markets too heavily, thus giving us four massive waves until vaccine distribution caught up, and then remote work that was allowed in many countries by law got slowly axed because REITs (real estate investment trusts) got screwed by companies quitting expensive rental contracts for office space. But that pales in comparison to what we'll see when the AI bubble pops.

[1] Q1 20: 23T, Q1 21: 26T => about 3T/y, 250B/mo, per https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL594090005Q

tristanj2• 2 months ago

Passive investing funnels money into the market without accounting for business fundamentals. It simply allocates funding by looking at sector and market cap. It's the definition of dumb money.

As long as companies can make it into the index, passive investors will funnel money into buying stock of these companies, no matter how badly these companies are run.

WinstonSmith84• 2 months ago

If you bet against the hype and it goes on for a few more months/years you lose as much or more than if you went along for the ride.
Burry is well aware of this ...

Well, no he isn't well aware of this, apparently. He's been right in 2008 but he has been spectacularly wrong for the last 5 to 10 years, like shorting Tesla or Nvidia at the worst possible moments - and eventually closing his hedge fund...

mgh2• 2 months ago

Sure, no one can predict the future. But even then, Tesla's fundamentals are shaky and it is held by Musk's ability to sell his story and brand, only some fundamentals hold- albeit the same 'fans' buying its cars might be invested in its stock. Same thing might be happening with Nvidia- hyperscalers heavily investing in infrastructure and pushing AI adoption to justify ROI.

heisgone• 2 months ago

He was wrong about the timing of the bubble popping and might well still be too early, as passive investing might allow for the market to keep inflating for many years to come. Mike Green explaining it better, about how mathematically, there is an inflexion point where if x% of investment is passive, it could make the whole system unstable (I don't remember the specific number) and crash, but until then, it will keep rising.

Haven880• 2 months ago

He didn't realized that speculating stocks allowed by Fed and both parties. The vast majority money needed to prop up American economy right now (or in the last 10 years) have nothing to do with econ 101. It is purely money printing at its finest making Japanese banana money and Germans look amateurish. Fed now basically print money to bank and directed bank to buy stocks and loans as they like to certain orgs and individuals. Any short selling or whistleblowers suicided.

ffsm82• 2 months ago

shorting Tesla or Nvidia at the worst possible moments - and eventually closing his hedge fund...

He just didn't take to heart that the market can stay irrational for longer then he could stay solvent.

Both Tesla and Nvidia valuations are irrational from a market perspective. Doesn't mean they'll crash within the next months or even years, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did

chung81232• 2 months ago

The US is adding so much money to the economy every year and all that money has to go somewhere. I used to think this would come crashing down but at this point no one cares about debt and by the time we do it will be too late.

bdcravens2• 2 months ago

The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore

by "anymore" I assume you mean for a few decades now

kamaal• 2 months ago

>The stock market doesn't operate on long-term principles anymore.

Nah, it might appear so, but the moment of reckoning always arrives, always. Like eventually, it arrives.

Its a different argument, that most people themselves are not long-term investors, in that case of course, such a thing doesn't even apply to you.

I think Fidelity did some research that the most profitable accounts belonged to dead people. The proven formula is to pick the best stocks out there, pyramid upwards and be patient.

whazor• 2 months ago

I think you could argue Anthropic could be worth $1T. With AI becoming an essential work utility, every global knowledge worker would want a claude subscription. There are 650M to 1B of such office workers. 300M workers × $50/month × 12 = $180B/year. The genie is not going back into the bottle, I have seen what claude code can do when properly connected to tools.

But Micheals arguments are valid. There could be competition, or even local models, thus indeed becoming 'commoditized'.

cyanydeez• 2 months ago

thing is, we have both local models and local hardware and a true evaluation would do a calculation before openai inflated thw market, before nvidia made circular deals and the other distortions. i think youd find the ROI is nowhere near the API rates are the "price support" is entirely a figment of billionaires and their parasites trying to corner the market by horde logistics

jappgar• 2 months ago

Why would we need 1B office workers when Claude is supposed to fire everyone anyways?

orwin• 2 months ago

What probability do you assign to that, especially since CC harness code leaked?

Because I used frontier models this weekend (I had 78% of my assigned tokens for this month left, I wanted to burn them before June 1st, ended up with 24% left), and tbh, I don't see much of the improvement compared to the models I use day-to-day. I'd rather pay less for a slightly worse model. Stacktrace analysis (or any bug analysis really) is where LLMs have the most success rate imho, and free models are good enough since last year. As for coding/architecture tasks, frontier models seems to hallucinate less, but I wonder if it's the guardrails or the he model themselves.

bpt35• 2 months ago

AI is far from becoming an essential work utility, Anthropic will not be used by approximately 100% of the office workers in the developed world, and a price to sales ratio of over 5 for a company that is struggling to become profitable due to high operating expenses seems exceptionally high.

The problem with all these companies is that they are priced as if their training and inference costs are going to come way down, but somehow only for them specifically.

sourcecodeplz• 2 months ago

I code 8+ hours days with Deepseek V4 flash and it costs me under $1 per day... I dont know how they will charge so much for a sub.

alberto467• 2 months ago

Well... $1 a day is not that far from that hypothetical $50 a month though. Especially if it gives you access to significantly more powerful models (which it does).

EDIT: i still find absurd thinking that all those subscription would go to a single company, let me be clear. But that $50 price doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

jansan• 2 months ago

The real question is how we are defining "worth." Much of the market has decoupled from traditional fundamental data, with Tesla's P/E of 380 illustrating this perfectly, but the Tesla stock price refuses to collapse.

We all know the market can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent if you bet against it. If you watched "The Long Short" (excellent movie btw.) you know how close Michael Burry came to capitulation before his subprime bet paid off. He seems to have a tendency to be too early with his predictions, even with his genius GameStop investment. So while he may be right again fundamentally, his timing may be completely off and those companies could be "worth" significantly more than a trillion dollars, at least temporarily, in stock valuations.

My personal prediction is this: The hype will go on longer than people think, just like with the New Economy. There is this quote from market analyst Larry Wachtel in 1999 who said: "Everybody's happy, everybody's making money - something's wrong here"[1]. Ironically, even Wachtel eventually succumbed to FOMO, capitulated, went in late, and lost a lot of money[2]. I am trying to not make his mistake, but it will be tempting to do so, I am sure about that.

[1] https://youtu.be/uaK5tsH59UM?t=1188

[2] https://youtu.be/DSVPsP0Bfx0?t=456

jklowden• 2 months ago

Exactly. Anthropic has been losing three-comma money until recently. In Q2 2026 it earned a profit for the first time, about $500 million. If we imagine they will earn $2 billion in 2026, that’s a 0.2% return on the $1 trillion investment.

To believe the valuation, Anthropic earnings need to grow 100x. For a more likely outcome, I can recommend a bridge in Brooklyn.

pjmlp7• 2 months ago

Of course not, this is pure speculation just like in past cycles, until it goes bum.

schonfinkel2• 2 months ago

And this time the boooom has a larger blast radius than all the previous booooms combined.

abirch• 2 months ago

The largest so far. We have always been in a boom/ bust cycle. The difference is that they are coming faster and faster.

I need to figure out the next one.

The famous quote, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent," is widely attributed to the renowned British economist John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946

kkkqkqkqkqlqlql• 2 months ago

You know, like all the other booms.

jstummbillig2• 2 months ago

Minus, of course, all the times where it did not go bum, right?

mrits• 2 months ago

Most people can't get past the kind of logic that declares Facebook doomed for 20 years because Myspace.

pjmlp7• 2 months ago

Such as?

lostmsu• 2 months ago

This is a description of the life itself.

helsinkiandrew3• 2 months ago

Matt Levine made an interesting point that the SpaceX IPO looks like a short squeeze/pump and dump [1]:

1. Do an IPO.

2. Sell a small amount (5%) to price insensitive Elon Musk-fans at a $2 trillion valuation

3. Get in all the indexes, because you are huge.

4. Unlock more stock, which the index funds have to purchase

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-06-01/the...

baxtr• 2 months ago

Please, don’t buy the stock. It’s a classic retail investor trap

helsinkiandrew3• 2 months ago

The issue is that once it's in the S&P500, Russel, Nasdaq100 etc indices - everyone with a pension or tracker fund will be buying it without thinking

Luc• 2 months ago

But he then writes: "I want to be really clear that this is the schematic maximally cynical approach, is not what SpaceX is doing, and is not actually possible."

uriahlight• 2 months ago

It'll be a wonderful crow feast to anyone who agrees with Michael Burry on this.

martinclayton4• 2 months ago

What's the rationale offered by NASDAQ for their new "15-days and you're in the index" rule for these massive IPOs?

Seems equivalent to removing road safety rules for the least-tested, most-powerful new vehicles only.

bombcar• 2 months ago

I suppose you could make an argument that these enormously large IPOs are themselves a new phenomenon and need to be accounted for.

brainwad• 2 months ago

They want the index to be representative of the top stocks listed on the Nasdaq, even if they are brand new. The Nasdaq 100 in particular is a marketing tool for the stock exchange, it's not a particularly principled index.

martinclayton4• 2 months ago

Yeah, indeed. See (march) https://www.reuters.com/business/new-nasdaq-rules-include-fa...

Quote from Cameron Lilja, Nasdaq's global head of index solutions:

"It is not necessarily representative to have a company that's big and could have a sizable representation in the index to keep them out for that long," Lilja said in an interview. "We're seeing share and corporate structures change - and companies that are staying private considerably longer are thus growing to be truly mega-cap companies before they even come to the public markets."

There's been fewer IPOs recently so Nasdaq and competitors are all racing to woo the few big ones to list with them.

rlt• 2 months ago

It seems like the index funds’ problem to solve.

They should just have their own criteria for inclusion in the fund.

rstuart4133• 2 months ago

The rational was: SpaceX will list with you, if you change that rule for us.

JumpCrisscross• 2 months ago

What's the rationale offered by NASDAQ for their new "15-days and you're in the index" rule for these massive IPOs?

This actually makes sense to me. The NASDAQ 100 is—brand wise—geared towards the largest technology companies. It isn’t trying to pick good investments. It’s trying to represent that market. All of these AI companies fit that bill.

I’m more sceptical about S&P suspending its float and profitability requirements. But despite financial influencers on YouTube banging this drum for views, S&P hasn’t actually decided that yet.

wewewedxfgdf• 2 months ago

So the company that actually makes computers programming computers work, ain't worth $1T.

Whoever you are Michael Burry, you don't know shit about the implications, and where this is headed, and that the party only just got started.

I sure do wish I had a big chunk of that overpriced Google IPO stock, and Amazon, and MS, and Apple, etc etc etc

saidnooneever• 2 months ago

makes computers work. makes computer programming work.

please go back to school

axegon_• 2 months ago

the company that actually makes computers programming computers work

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

bhokbah• 2 months ago

So the company that actually makes computers programming computers work

Translation (took me while to understand this sentence):

So the company that actually solved the problem of making a computer program write other computer programs

IAmBroom4• 2 months ago

For those that can't parse it, weewee was apparently saying:

Burry says that the company making "computers that can program other computers" isn't worth $1T.

However, if you can't even be bothered to find out who Michael Burry is, your opinion is nothing more than a driveby internet shooting. Adds nothing but noise.

LightBug1• 2 months ago

Literally adjusting my pension funds and ETA's away from this ... I don't even care if I lose out. I want stable growth. Not a nation obsessed with memestocks.

schonfinkel2• 2 months ago

Are you trying to be sane and rational in a market that has turned into a casino? U crazy or something?

spwa4• 2 months ago

This is what they're actually talking about:

https://michaeljburry.substack.com/

And the counterpoint is that META, GOOG, AMZN, MSFT are all betting their companies that AI is the next move. Just yesterday, GOOG lent another $80 billion to be invested in their AI hardware, and they're also investing their own stock in AI hardware, for a cumulative investment of already over $1 trillion. Clearly the tech sector thinks this is worth it.

And of course the people deciding in FANG companies actually have numbers, Michael Burry has the same numbers you have. So these investments are "worth it" according to people with inside information. What Burry is doing, in one perspective, is calling out the leadership of FANG companies. Now that's the job of a short-seller of course. But that's the bet being made.

iso16314• 2 months ago

Doesn't matter, it will go into the nasdaq/s&p at $1t, passive funds will have to buy it at that price, meaning a wealth transfer from 401ks to people with pre-ipo stock

The only reason AI is worth $1T is if you believe it will continue to get better and displace all those jobs, not just in claude replacing knowlege workers, but in the outcome of that work being so transformational that physical work is also replaced.

If it does, then the entire economy is completely turned over and it doesn't really matter as nobody will have a job, and thus the entire concept of the S&P and the western economy as a whole falls to bits.

10xDev• 2 months ago

The belief (for some) is that it will create new jobs like previous revolutions. No one has said what those will look like yet though.

chvid• 2 months ago

Coinbase IPOed 5 years ago and is (and has mostly been) trading below its IPO price.

Perhaps private equity has become so skilled that when they finally sell to the public they leave nothing on table.

kjksf• 2 months ago

Or maybe it's very rational because their 2021 (IPO year) revenue ($7,839m) was higher than their 2025 revenue ($7,181).

Granted, their profitability is better but in 2021 they were (rationally) valued based on Great Expectations which didn't pan out.

Now they're (rationally) valued on Much Less Great Expectations.

So I think it has nothing to do with skills of early investors (not the boogeymen, irrelevant private equity) and everything to do with Coinbase being a fast growth company at the time of IPO and being negative growth company after IPO.

directevolve• 2 months ago

IPOs are one-shot, sealed-bid auctions, and the winner’s curse applies. There are separate equilibria where the company maximizes its cash gains or its fully diluted market cap. It can pick which to target.

“Leaving nothing on the table” would mean selling few enough shares at the IPO that you have to overpay to get shares at the IPO. Previous valuations are known, as is that implied by each choice of IPO price when looking at the book. So the skill is just in the company not needing all that much money and being great at generating hype.

tejohnso• 2 months ago

And TSLA isn't worth it's current market cap of 1.47 trillion dollars either. Hasn't been of any consequence for years.

simianwords4• 2 months ago

I'm noticing a sort of mass hysteria and performative concern over AI's fundamental economics coming from grief/cope.

I believe that Anthropic is worth $1T. I believe it won't go below it (inflation adjusted) for the next 2+ years. How do I make money with this?

vfalbor2• 2 months ago

This is a very interesting comment. Companies like OpenAI or ChatGPT sell hardware hidden in tokens, and the token is different for each company depending on the tokenizer. The concern is this: when you have an Opus 4.7, Sonnet, or GPT 5X with an Nvidia H100 or H200 GPU, what will happen to this cost when, if not Nvidia, another Chinese company enters the market and starts running these models? The point here is that as long as Nvidia is the provider, and limits access to the machines and the number of data centers is also limited, these companies can be worth whatever they want. But the moment this starts to expand, the value will surely decline, because what you're selling isn't the model itself, which is ultimately just a 1 TB file that you have replicated across machines. What you're selling is access to a software program on a specialized machine. As long as you control the resource, which in this case is that machine, you'll have value. The moment other machine manufacturers enter the market, your value will decrease.

dgellow3• 2 months ago

Or the AI labs just take an increased margin? The model is ultimately what people want access to and are paying for

batperson• 2 months ago

If you check openrouter there are a tons of providers selling API access to open source LLMs at a fraction of the cost compared to SOTA models (codex/claude). What model you're serving and what kind of platform you serve is a big factor.

I'm no expert but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them and a that will absorb a chunk of the market, similar to what happened to crypto mining but to a lesser degree since the work isn't as static.

arevno• 2 months ago

NN-specific ASICs won't buy you much more FLOPs per watt than GPUs/TPUs will. These chips are already extremely good at NN computation. Sure, you could remove GP shader support and free up 5% of your die for a few more cores (which btw is what TPUs pretty much are), but that's about it.

Either way, you'll still be starving for data.

The best work in this area is memory-integrated Big-Ass-Die or Big-Ass-Chiplet solutions like Cerebras which park SRAM right next to your cores, not ASICs.

vallassy• 2 months ago

but I think eventually we'll have even more specialized ASIC like machines with models burned into them

This has already happened and is very interesting.

https://www.anuragk.com/blog/posts/Taalas.html

josefritzishere• 2 months ago

What's going on with SpaceX and the S&P seems pretty crimey.

Michael Burry says neither SpaceX nor Anthropic is worth $1T

Related Stories