원문 보기
Elon, you have seen every facet of his personality and can judge 20 years of his behavior. Sundar and Demis—20 years old. Zuckerberg—20 years old. And I think these people have proven that they run a pretty clear and predictable business, don't you think? There are no tricks or scams here. Perhaps this has happened on Facebook in the past.
I think they've already fixed it. Of course? But Google definitely doesn't, and Elon doesn't either . You may not like it for other reasons. And suddenly these two guys appear, undoubtedly incredible entrepreneurs, but the amount of data by which we can assess their behavior in difficult situations is still quite limited, because they have only been in the public eye for a few years and under such close attention.
If you look at the early years of Facebook—it was a mess. I don't know about Google. Maybe the first few years. We would talk about you, in your 20 years you will be able to tell a lot. I mean, you know , I was portrayed as the guy from Facebook that made everyone cry, but look at this—this is a $2 trillion company, so those tears were crocodile tears.
IBM says that they just lost some big deals— they always say things like that, but what's interesting is that the customers they were trying to attract were distracted by the industry-wide cybersecurity issues and that they would... if you think that if you have someone... what if they now say it's because of the weather?
No, I have a real problem with this, and I've said it several times already, so I'll say it again . You can look at the financial needs chart of these companies, right? And you can tell when they are vacillating between two different messages. The first message: we created a supergod, and then venture capitalists , like lemmings, run around and say: "I need to be on the side of this supergod." And then they switch to the second one: it's a complete weapon.
Let's stop the world, and why don't you regulate everything? They just keep changing their rhetoric. We've seen this game before. The problem is that at a trillion-dollar capitalization, this game has consequences that affect everyone in the industry. By the way, this is why I think Alex Karp deserves a medal.
This is an incredible person who had the courage to come here. Everyone has seen this passage. All these S&P 500 CEOs called me after that clip and said, "Help me understand this." And I'll tell you, he was on the right side of history. Because what it's showing you is , wait a second. Like, you need a much more predictable way of doing business.
Because if you, you know, adjust to the volatility of private company funding cycles or the desire of private companies to meet trillion-dollar valuations, you're taking on a risk that you may not have even realized. I think this is a fair criticism. Um, we need to take a little break. Just one last question, because it relates to the topic of Alex Karp.
Essentially, he's saying that Palantir—you're going to need some kind of intermediate level. I believe in that too. Partly for your protection. I mean, in a way, he was arguing with LLM. That's the thing. LLMs do a good job with a very superficial form of privacy called zero-logging . ZDR. That's the term they use.
And they say: turn this on and everything will be great, everything will be fine. But if you look at the fine print: let's say Joe enters Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret formula into the model and says, " Help me optimize it." This part is ZDR. But if you look at something small, like if he just clicks the "like" button, is there a guarantee that this information won't somehow be retained that he liked it?
And the honest technical answer is no, because we don't know how to do it. Another interesting thing I would like to bring to your attention is that when Alex spoke, he said something extremely pertinent. I think this applies to companies. This also applies to countries. So at some point we should talk about this .
And never once did Anthropic say: you know what, he's completely wrong . Here are the exact technical details, so there's nothing to look at here. And I thought: why don't you do it right after the clip went viral? Is n't that right? Be completely specific and refute this statement. And I find it funny that here we are 10 days later, and not a word has been said , except for Alex's version, because we all know that 's the true version.
Yes, I think it was a great week for economic data. The housing construction figures we received today are quite impressive. Remember yesterday's figures for pending home sales? It was a failure. They fell by 5.4%. This is a terrible number. But the good news is the number of new constructions that are recorded when the foundation of a new house is poured: 1.427 million.
This is a significant jump from 1.17. Remember, a month ago the number was terrible. We expected a figure of around 1.32. So this is a good result. Instead, building permits—that is, paperwork for future facilities— fell short of expectations: 1.367 million. We expected about 1.4. So, there is a slight lag , but the number of new constructions is a good, promising indicator.
Import and export prices proved unstable. Import prices were expected to fall compared to the previous month, but they rose 0.3%. Export prices were expected to rise by 0.8%, but they fell by 0.6%. So , import and export figures are quite volatile. We need to delve deeper into this issue and find out what exactly is happening.
Do these indicators change the rules of the game? No, they don't change. Not for the market as a whole today. Something unusual is happening in the field of AI . For months, investors wondered if semiconductor stocks had gone too far , and then Micron soared. These stocks have become some of the hottest on the market.
AI infrastructure companies experienced tremendous growth, and then, inevitably, came volatility. Suddenly, the same stocks that investors had been buying up so quickly began to fall precipitously. But this is where the story gets interesting. While stock prices have fluctuated, fundamental demand may not have changed as much as the market reaction suggests , and there's nothing more interesting in this context than Micron.
One of the most striking predictions being discussed is the possibility that Micron could generate an extraordinary amount of free cash flow over the coming years. If anything close to these estimates becomes a reality, investors will have to ask much more serious questions. What will Micron do with all this money?
The obvious answer is that a significant portion will go back into business, as the AI revolution has created a huge appetite for memory. Every advanced AI system requires computing power, but it does not exist in isolation. You need GPUs, networking, power, and, crucially , memory. This has put . The difficulty is that the memory market .
Demand is growing, prices are rising. Manufacturers make huge profits, and then everyone builds capacity. Eventually, supply catches up with demand. The price will drop, the margin will decrease, and the cycle will begin again. It is this historical scenario that investors fear. Optimists today say this cycle could be different.
Not because cyclicality has magically disappeared, but because the structure of demand can change. Historically, memory demand has been driven by consumer electronics: PCs, smartphones, traditional servers . These markets experienced significant fluctuations in demand. Artificial intelligence brings something new.
The world's largest technology companies are building powerful computing infrastructure that will require increasingly advanced memory for years to come. And unlike previous consumer cycles, some customers are looking for long-term commitments, which gives manufacturers a better overview of the market.
However, investors should not assume that this eliminates risks. Long-term agreements may improve predictability, but they do not override economic laws.
Comments 0