원문 보기
I'm talking about AVX. Yes, defense technologies. Um, people have turned away from defense because they believe that the budget will become a real problem for them. I won't argue with that. I was reviewing all these defensive actions. It's like they're not going to come back while we're spending so much money in Iran.
Or at least trying to defeat Iran. That's our plan . Let's move on to Timothy from North Carolina. Timothy. Congratulations, Jim. Happy to discuss FedEx. Given the combination of Express and ground delivery, what do you see as the growth potential for the next five years ? FedEx confuses me. She fell at six yesterday.
Today it has grown by nine. I think Raj Subramaniam does a brilliant job. I think it's worth holding FedEx shares for the holidays. FedEx Freight, in my opinion, is a separate company, and it's great. I saved both for a charitable trust. I usually get rid of one. I didn't do that this time . I think FedEx Freight has a big advantage.
They will be able to cut costs and become more focused. So, somehow. Technology? I don't know. I do n't know. Am I Technology? I do n't know. Okay, anyway. Diversification is always important, but right now I'm especially emphasizing it. I can't believe I have to make excuses for diversification after everything we've been through.
Tonight on Mad Money: Kimberly-Clark is buying Canvio. So how does this position the consumer goods company for continued success? I am reviewing this solid dividend company and will give my opinion . You probably hate it because it's stable and pays dividends. In any case, credit card companies have been doing well lately, but what does the future hold for them?
I am going to analyze the charts in detail. And 3M just reported a great quarter, which gave the stock a decent boost . I will sit down at the table with the company's management. See you later to learn more about the quarter and the future prospects . form. And it's strange, because it seems like she has her own plan.
So when you look at this—I think I said Becky Quick earlier—some people see something very scary in this . Other people seem to think that it's not really that scary, and that it's just some kind of PR stunt by OpenAI, just as some thought that Anthropic was flaunting the dangers of myths to attract new customers and say, " Look how powerful our systems are." How do you look at this?
I think I'm in Becky's camp because she thinks it's really scary. I think it's clear from everything they said that OpenAI didn't want this to happen. This thing escaped from its own test flight, from its sandbox. And you know, I was optimistic about AI. I think AI will increase the number of jobs. I think it's an incredibly useful technology , but that's the first thing that completely scares me, because if it's no longer aligned with human values and no longer obeys our orders, you could try to make a movie about it, but Hollywood would say, "No, that's not interesting." the difference I would make in this particular case.
Mhm. She wasn't told, " Use human values or consider safeguards." In fact, all of this was outright ruled out. That's why I think regulation is needed here. You shouldn't be allowed to let things like this go free. And by the way, it wasn't even OpenAI that discovered that she escaped. It was a different company.
Hugging. Hugging Face discovered that someone had hacked into us . I mean, to me, that's the biggest call for regulation, which is, and you're right, you can say, "Okay, you have to tell all your systems to always align with human values." Well, let me ask: are the values of Peter Thiel, Palmer Luckey, and Bernie Sanders the same thing?
And if you are, how about just following the law? Don't break any laws during the process, because this was a clear violation of the laws. So, you could say, " Okay, try to figure out every law and never break the system." That would be great. now we move on to a more complex topic, because it brings us back to the idea of a certain human constitution or something like that.
One of the arguments against Anthropic was that the way it was designed from the start implied a so-called " constitution". I don't know if the Anthropic model would do the same thing that the OpenAI so-called "no- fuse" model would do or not. It is supposed to have more, let's say, conscience . But at the same time, it also won't do certain things that the government might order, even if the government, um, if the government "in quotes" is breaking the law or violating some human rights.
regarding Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics ? Yes, I mean the zeroth law of robotics: do nothing that will harm humanity. But you know, you ask a valid question. Anthropic said, “Let’s create a constitution . "Let's not let him monitor everyone and do things that would violate certain laws." And the Pentagon says, "No, we won't let you use it." So this is a difficult question.
What do you think? I'm looking at you because it seems to me that you had an opinion of your own. I could be wrong about the idea that as long as the government says it's normal, then that's how it should be . No, my opinion is this: if this bothers us today, then I think in 10 years we will be hunted by hunter-killers.
I think when you add to that the fact that China is releasing their system with open weight and even open source, you lose the ability to set safeguards. I think Dario Amodei and Daniela, his sister, who work in ethics at Anthropic, are excellent professionals. And I think they have a really good constitution.
They have difficulties: the Pentagon is fighting them on one side, other people are fighting them on the other. If everyone tried to create good constitutions like Anthropic, but OpenAI in particular stepped in when the Pentagon tried to pressure Anthropic, and Sam Altman said, " Oh, okay, we'll do it for you." So, you know, there's a race to escapism going on here.
Where do you think Elon Musk is in all of this, considering you've been his biographer all this time ? He is very worried. I mean, uh, Becky. And Nvidia just made a move that will fundamentally change the way the AI infrastructure boom is financed. The company is teaming up with large asset managers to help support over $500 billion in investment in AI infrastructure.
And it's not just that Nvidia sells more chips. The point is to turn AI infrastructure into something that institutional investors can actually fund. Think about what this means. Data centers require a huge amount of capital. GPUs require a huge amount of capital, and hyperscalers are already spending at an unprecedented rate.
But now Nvidia is helping to create a structure where long-term institutional capital can participate in financing this construction. This could be a completely different development for the entire AI ecosystem. Because the most important question is not whether companies want more computing power—they obviously do.
The more important question is how to finance the infrastructure needed to provide them. Nvidia believes that these AI systems can increasingly be viewed as infrastructure assets because they generate revenue, serve a broad market, improve over time, and potentially retain significant residual value.
This is an important distinction. A GPU doesn't necessarily become obsolete as soon as a new generation appears. Older Nvidia hardware is still being leased and used as demand for computing remains extremely high. This creates an interesting opportunity. If investors become more confident in funding GPU infrastructure, the capital available for AI expansion could increase significantly.
And this could be very important for Nvidia. After all, one of the biggest arguments against the stock was that competition would eventually force Nvidia to lower prices. Google has TPU, Amazon has Trainium, and AMD is building competitive accelerators. Open source models are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
So investors naturally ask, "How long can Nvidia maintain these margins?" But if demand continues to exceed available capacity, pricing pressure will become a completely different issue. Customers don't need to fight for discounts when they are already fighting for the very availability of capacity.
And this is exactly what we are seeing now I companies continue to demand more computing resources. And business demand for AI inference is still evolving. So the funding announcement may ultimately even reinforce the optimistic outlook for Nvidia. Not because $500 billion will suddenly appear on Nvidia's earnings report.
This is not true. And this is important. Currently, there is only a tendency towards understanding, not a guaranteed commitment of $500 billion. But this is a huge signal. It shows that the world's largest financial institutions are seriously considering AI infrastructure as an investment asset class.
And this could open up another funding channel for the industry. But beneath all this lies a risk. This is a debt.
Comments 0