It’s surprising to me that any investor in public stocks thinks share price is related to anything other than what investors are willing to pay. If everyone thinks price will go down, it doesn’t matter what underlying value exists, people will sell off. You hold on if you think investors will wise up at some arbitrary point in the future and buy it again. Which could theoretically be related to the value of AI, but is actually only about a monkey brain’s perception of value.
There is no underlying fundamental reason that makes stock price match company performance or value. It’s a gambling market that sometimes happens to match real financials
During the irrational slap-'AI'-on-everything to juice the stock.
Their current plan is the same as that shoe company that tried to rent out their warehouse space for AI compute.
Same plan as Meta, other than scammers using meta AI to scam our parents out of their money. (Meta makes billions off of this use case and really shouldn't)
At least there's a real aerospace company in there. The companies pivoting will have no value when the market corrects, but affordable aerospace launches will keep on keeping on.
If anything, the anti-datacenter NIMBYism that the AI craze is generating will far outlast the AI craze, and NIMBYism is the only thing that would make launching datacenters into space cost effective, so Space X may get a long-term boost out of the whole ordeal, whether or not they have internal success in the AI market.
Renting data center capacity to AI providers might be the best business model out there, currently related to AI. Surpassed possibly by hardware manufacturers.
I'm not so sure. Is there really a demand for more AI data centers? Has anyone been turned down by OpenAI or Antrophic because they are out of capacity?
I think the demand is more about what's not using AI yet, plus half the world isn't really dependent on online services and platforms yet, two huge areas of growth.
It’s surprising to me that any investor in public stocks thinks share price is related to anything other than what investors are willing to pay. If everyone thinks price will go down, it doesn’t matter what underlying value exists, people will sell off. You hold on if you think investors will wise up at some arbitrary point in the future and buy it again. Which could theoretically be related to the value of AI, but is actually only about a monkey brain’s perception of value.
There is no underlying fundamental reason that makes stock price match company performance or value. It’s a gambling market that sometimes happens to match real financials
You’re not the only one saying this
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/buffett-to...
There is such thing as negative AI value :)
You'd think Morgan Stanley would understand stuffing debt from one failing company into another semi-ok company.
Yahoo's total value was worse than the Alibaba stock they owned. Their web services had negative value.
Isn't that why SpaceX "acquired" xAI?
Next step is to "acquire" Tesla and give himself full control again.
During the irrational slap-'AI'-on-everything to juice the stock.
Their current plan is the same as that shoe company that tried to rent out their warehouse space for AI compute.
Same plan as Meta, other than scammers using meta AI to scam our parents out of their money. (Meta makes billions off of this use case and really shouldn't)
At least there's a real aerospace company in there. The companies pivoting will have no value when the market corrects, but affordable aerospace launches will keep on keeping on.
If anything, the anti-datacenter NIMBYism that the AI craze is generating will far outlast the AI craze, and NIMBYism is the only thing that would make launching datacenters into space cost effective, so Space X may get a long-term boost out of the whole ordeal, whether or not they have internal success in the AI market.
Renting data center capacity to AI providers might be the best business model out there, currently related to AI. Surpassed possibly by hardware manufacturers.
I'm not so sure. Is there really a demand for more AI data centers? Has anyone been turned down by OpenAI or Antrophic because they are out of capacity?
I think the demand is more about what's not using AI yet, plus half the world isn't really dependent on online services and platforms yet, two huge areas of growth.
I yearn for the days when companies were judged on profit. Not ideology. Vibes. Hypes. Tweets. White House visits. The goddamn singularity.
When was that?