Speaker 1: Zone Media. Try spinning. That's a good trick. I'm at Zetron.
Speaker 1: This is Better Offline and this is the second episode
Speaker 1: of my two part series where I explain how open
Speaker 1: ai has become a systemic risk to the tech industry,
Speaker 1: even with its massive forty billion dollar funding round and
Speaker 1: bird brain benefactor in the form of soft Bank, the
Speaker 1: world's foremost authority in losing money. Now, before I continue,
Speaker 1: shameless request, Better Offline has been nominated for a Webbie
Speaker 1: and I want to win this thing. I've linked to
Speaker 1: it in my Twitter and my Blue Sky and if
Speaker 1: you could vote for me, well, it will be in
Speaker 1: the episode notes two. Moving on back at it. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, open ai now has forty billion dollars somehow,
Speaker 1: right great? Right, Well, Dolgier horses. As part of its
Speaker 1: deal with soft Bank, open Ai must also convert its
Speaker 1: bizarre nonprofit structure into a for profit entity by December
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, or it will lose ten billion dollars
Speaker 1: from that forty billion dollars and of funding. And just
Speaker 1: to be clear, by the way, they've only really got
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars of that so far. The rest is
Speaker 1: at the end of the year. Furthermore, and the event
Speaker 1: that open ai fails to convert into a for profit
Speaker 1: company by October twenty twenty six, investors in its previous
Speaker 1: six point six billion dollar funding route can claw back
Speaker 1: their investment with a converting into a loan with an
Speaker 1: attached interest rate. Naturally, this represents a night mess scenario
Speaker 1: for the company, as it will increase both its costs
Speaker 1: and its outgoings. This is a complex situation that almost
Speaker 1: warrants its own podcast, But the long and short of
Speaker 1: it is that open ai would have to effectively dissolve itself,
Speaker 1: start the process of reforming an entirely new entity, and
Speaker 1: distribute its assets to other nonprofits or seller license them
Speaker 1: to a for profit company at fair market rates which
Speaker 1: they would not set. It would also require valuing open
Speaker 1: ai as assets, which in and of itself would be
Speaker 1: a difficult task, as well as getting past the necessary
Speaker 1: state regulators, the IRA state revenue agencies, and the upcoming
Speaker 1: trial with Elon Musk Well, that only adds further problems.
Speaker 1: I've simplified things here, and that's because, as I've said,
Speaker 1: this stuff is a little complex and pretty boring. Suffice
Speaker 1: to say, this isn't as simple as liquidating a company
Speaker 1: and starting a fresh or submitting a couple of legal filings.
Speaker 1: It's a long, fraught process and one that will be
Speaker 1: as as has been subject to legal challenges, both from
Speaker 1: open AI's business rivals as well as from civil society
Speaker 1: organizations in California. You may have heard the lost monologue.
Speaker 1: Based on discussions with experts in the field of my
Speaker 1: own research, I simply do not know how open ai
Speaker 1: pulls off this by October twenty twenty six, and honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how they do it by the end
Speaker 1: of this year. It's insane. It's a it's a really
Speaker 1: I just every time I read this stuff and I
Speaker 1: write out, I'm like, how is nobody else reading this
Speaker 1: and going, what the fuck is going on? You See,
Speaker 1: this is a big problem, this nonprofit thing, because open
Speaker 1: eye really has become a systemic risk to the tech industry,
Speaker 1: and anything that increases that is bad news for everybody.
Speaker 1: Open Ai, they've become a kind of load bearing company
Speaker 1: for this industry, both as a narrative, as I've discussed
Speaker 1: multiple times as chat GPT is the only large language
Speaker 1: model company with any meaningful use base, and also as
Speaker 1: a financial entity. Its ability to meet its obligations and
Speaker 1: its future expansion plans are critical to the future health
Speaker 1: or in some cases survival of multiple large companies. And
Speaker 1: that's before the after effects that will affect its customers
Speaker 1: as a result of any kind of financial collapse. The
Speaker 1: parallels to the two thousand and seven the two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight financial crisis are starting to become a little worrying.
Speaker 1: Layman Brothers wasn't the largest investment bank in the world,
Speaker 1: although it was pretty big, just like open Ai isn't
Speaker 1: the largest tech company, though again it's certainly large in
Speaker 1: terms of alleged valuation and expenditures. Layman Brothers collapse sparked
Speaker 1: a contagient that would later spread throughout the entire global
Speaker 1: financial services industry and consequently the global economy. Now I
Speaker 1: can see open AI's failure not having as big an effect,
Speaker 1: but I can imagine a systemic effect. Still, you have
Speaker 1: to realize that the whole AI trade, the narrative, the bubble,
Speaker 1: it's holding up the economy. I think like thirty thirty
Speaker 1: five percent of the US stock market is in the
Speaker 1: Magnificent seven, and all of their bullshit numbers right now
Speaker 1: are held up by this nonsense. And like the financial crisis,
Speaker 1: the impact in this case won't be limited to just
Speaker 1: bankers and insurers. It will bleed into everything else. This
Speaker 1: episode is going to be a bit grim. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to lie. I want to lay out the direct
Speaker 1: result of any kind of financial crisis at open Ai,
Speaker 1: because I don't think anybody is taking this seriously. Let's
Speaker 1: start with Oracle, who will lose at least a billion
Speaker 1: dollars if open ai doesn't fulfill its obligations per the Information. Oracle,
Speaker 1: which has taken responsibility for organizing the construction of the
Speaker 1: stargate data centers with unproven data center build a Cruso
Speaker 1: and I quote the Information here, may need to raise
Speaker 1: more capital to fund its data center ambitions. Oracle has
Speaker 1: signed a fifteen year lease with Crusoe, and to quote
Speaker 1: the Information is on the hook for one billion dollars
Speaker 1: in payments to that firm. To further quote information. While
Speaker 1: that's the standard deal length, the unprecedented size of the
Speaker 1: facility Oracle is building for just one customerment makes its
Speaker 1: riskier than the standard cloud data center used by lots
Speaker 1: of interchangeable customers with much more predictable needs. According to
Speaker 1: half a dozen people familiar with these types of deals.
Speaker 1: In simpler terms, Oracle is building a giant data center
Speaker 1: for one customer, open Ai, and has taken on the
Speaker 1: financial burden associated with them. If open Ai fails to
Speaker 1: expand or lacks the capital to actually pay for its
Speaker 1: share of the Stargate data center project, Oracle is on
Speaker 1: the hook for at least a billion dollars, and based
Speaker 1: on the Information's reporting, it's also on the hooked by
Speaker 1: the GPUs for the site. This is me quoting them again.
Speaker 1: Even before the Stargate announcement, Oracle and open Ai had
Speaker 1: agreed to expand their Abelene deal from two to eight
Speaker 1: data center buildings, which can hold four hundred thousand and
Speaker 1: VIDIA Blackwell GPUs, adding tens of billions of dollars to
Speaker 1: the cost of the facility. In reality, this development will
Speaker 1: likely cost tens of billions of dollars, nineteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: of which is due from open Ai, which does not
Speaker 1: have the money until it receives its second tranche of
Speaker 1: funding in December twenty twenty five from SoftBank, and this
Speaker 1: is contingent partially on their ability to convert into a
Speaker 1: for profit entity, which has mentioned is extremely difficult and
Speaker 1: extremely unlikely. It's unclear how many of the Blackwell GPUs
Speaker 1: the Oracle has had to purchase in advance, but in
Speaker 1: the event of any kind of financial collapse, open Ai
Speaker 1: Oracle will likely have to toss at least a billion dollars,
Speaker 1: if not several billion dollars, and then we get the
Speaker 1: core with a companies. So a company whose expansion is
Speaker 1: likely driven entirely by open Ai now and cannot survive
Speaker 1: without open Ai flilling its obligations if it doesn't die.
Speaker 1: O Anyway, Now, I've written and spoken a lot about
Speaker 1: publicly traded AI compute firm Core Weave, and it would
Speaker 1: give me the greatest pleasure in my life. Never think
Speaker 1: or talk about them ever again. Nevertheless, I have to.
Speaker 1: This is my curse. This is my curse. Core Weave
Speaker 1: has become my curse every time I think about this.
Speaker 1: Fuck Okay. The Financial Times revealed a few weeks ago
Speaker 1: that core Weave's debt payments could balloon to over two
Speaker 1: point four billion dollars a year by the end of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, far outstripping its cash reserves, and the
Speaker 1: Information reported that its cash burn would increase to fifteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars in twenty twenty five, as Bird's IBO filing.
Speaker 1: Sixty two percent of core weaves twenty twenty four revenue
Speaker 1: a little under two billion, with losses amounting to eight
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty three million was Microsoft Compute, and based
Speaker 1: on the conversations I've had with sources, a good amount
Speaker 1: of this was Microsoft running compute for open Ai. Starting
Speaker 1: October twenty twenty five, open Ai will start paying core
Speaker 1: Weave as part of its five year long, twelve billion
Speaker 1: dollar contract, picking up the option that Microsoft declined. This
Speaker 1: is not great timing, or maybe it's perfect timing, because
Speaker 1: this is also when core Weave will have to start
Speaker 1: making payments on their massive, stupid, multi billion dollar d
Speaker 1: DTL two point zero loan mentioned in previous episodes. But really,
Speaker 1: there's a newsletter if you want to you hear me,
Speaker 1: go mad, You want to read me go mad? You
Speaker 1: read my read my core with piece because it really
Speaker 1: drove me insane. Nevertheless, these core Weave payments, the ones
Speaker 1: from open Ai to core Weave that October, they're pretty
Speaker 1: much critical to Corewave's future. This deal also suggests that
Speaker 1: open ai will become core Weave's life just customer. Microsoft
Speaker 1: had previously committed to spending ten billion dollars on core
Speaker 1: Weave services by the end of the decade, but CEO
Speaker 1: satchly Adella added a few months later on a podcast
Speaker 1: that its relationship with core Weave was a one time thing. Man,
Speaker 1: man a really like really fucking around there, such a
Speaker 1: don't love core Weave. Assuming Microsoft keeps spending it its
Speaker 1: previous rate, So about one point like sixty six percent
Speaker 1: of two billion dollars whatever those I have something that
Speaker 1: isn't guaranteed. By the way, it would still only be
Speaker 1: half of open AI's potential revenue to core Weave. Core
Speaker 1: Weave's expansion at this point is entirely driven by open Ai.
Speaker 1: Seventy seven percent of its twenty twenty four revenue came
Speaker 1: from two customers, Microsoft being the largest and yes, I
Speaker 1: just fucked up a number at sixty two percent and
Speaker 1: using core weaves auxiliary compute for open Ai. As a result,
Speaker 1: the future expansion efforts the theoretical one point three gigawatts
Speaker 1: have contracted, and by the way, that means it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Compute at core Weaver are largely, if not entirely, for
Speaker 1: the benefit of open Ai. In the event that open
Speaker 1: Ai cannot fulfill its obligations, core weave will collapse. It's
Speaker 1: that fucking simple, and then the shock waves will ripple further.
Speaker 1: In Video relies on corewey for more than six percent
Speaker 1: of its revenue and corwy's future credit worthiness to continue
Speaker 1: receiving said revenue. Well, much of that is dependent on
Speaker 1: open ai continuing to buy services from core Weave now
Speaker 1: and basically this in a comment I received from the
Speaker 1: legendary Gil Luria, Managing director and head of Technology research
Speaker 1: at Analyst DA Davison and Co, I quote him, since
Speaker 1: cor We've bought two hundred thousand GPUs last year, and
Speaker 1: those systems are around forty thousand dollars. We believe cor
Speaker 1: We've spent eight billion dollars on in Vidia last year.
Speaker 1: That represents more than six percent of Nvidia's revenue in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, he said last year, but I've just
Speaker 1: wanted to make it sound better. Core We've receives preferential
Speaker 1: access to Nvidia's GPUs, though Nvidia kind of denies that
Speaker 1: and makes up billions of dollars of Nvidia's revenue. Corweave
Speaker 1: then takes those GPUs and then they raise debt using
Speaker 1: the GPU's as collateral as well as customer contracts. Then
Speaker 1: they use the money they've raised to buy more GPUs
Speaker 1: from Nvidia. You may think that doesn't sound right. I
Speaker 1: am being complete, like this is factual information. At this
Speaker 1: point in video was the anchor for Corwave's IPO, and
Speaker 1: CEO Michael and Trader said that the IPO would not
Speaker 1: have closed without Invidia buying two hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars worth of their shares. Nvidia also invested one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars in the early days of core weaves, and
Speaker 1: for reasons I cannot understand, also agreed to spend one
Speaker 1: point three billion dollars over four years two and I
Speaker 1: quote the information rent its own chips from core weave
Speaker 1: fum fact. I can't find a single fucking mention of
Speaker 1: core weave in any of Nvidia's filings. Now buried in
Speaker 1: that core weaves s one the document every company publishes
Speaker 1: before going public was a warning about counterparty credit risk,
Speaker 1: which is when one party provides services or goods to
Speaker 1: another with specific repayment terms and the other party doesn't
Speaker 1: meet their side of the deal. While this was written
Speaker 1: as a theoretical as it could, in theoretically speaking, come
Speaker 1: from any company to which core Weave acts as a creditor.
Speaker 1: It only named one open Ai now has discussed previously.
Speaker 1: Core Weaver is saying that should a customer, any customer,
Speaker 1: but really they mean open Ai failed to pay its
Speaker 1: bills for infrastructure built on their behalf or services rendered,
Speaker 1: it can have a material risk of the company. Now.
Speaker 1: As an aside, the information reported that Google and someone's
Speaker 1: going to email me there, so I just want to
Speaker 1: get ahead of it. The core Weave is apparently in
Speaker 1: advanced talks with Google to nd GPUs it Also, it
Speaker 1: also added another thing in this story, just so that
Speaker 1: I don't have to hear from any of you. The
Speaker 1: Google's potential deal with core Weaves significantly smaller than their
Speaker 1: commitments with Microsoft as according to one of the people
Speaker 1: briefed on it, but could potentially expand in future years.
Speaker 1: Do not come to me and claim that Google's going
Speaker 1: to save core Weeve. I'll be so mad anyway. Even
Speaker 1: with Google and open AI's money, Carew's continued the ability
Speaker 1: to do business hinges heavily on its ability to raise
Speaker 1: further debt, which I have previously called into question a
Speaker 1: newsletter that gave me madness, and its ability to raise
Speaker 1: future debt is to quote the financial times secured against
Speaker 1: it's more than two hundred and fifty thousand n vida
Speaker 1: GPUs and its contracts with customers such as Microsoft. Now,
Speaker 1: any future debt that core Weave raises will be based
Speaker 1: off of its contract with open Ai. You know, the
Speaker 1: counterparty credit risk threat that represents a disproportionate sharef it's
Speaker 1: revenue I just mentioned, and also whatever GPUs they still
Speaker 1: have left that they can get debt on. As a result,
Speaker 1: a chunk of a video's future revenue is dependent on
Speaker 1: open AI's ability to fulfill its obligations the core Weave
Speaker 1: both in its ability to pay them, and they're timing
Speaker 1: less in doing so. If open ai fails, then core
Speaker 1: Weave fails, then that hurts and video Jensen's going to
Speaker 1: have to go. He's going to have to go to
Speaker 1: a cheaper leather jacketarium and it gets worse. Open AI's
Speaker 1: expansion is dependent on two unproven startups, one of them
Speaker 1: I just mentioned, who are also dependent on open ai
Speaker 1: to live with Microsoft's data center pullback and open AI's
Speaker 1: intend to become independent from redmen. Future data center expansion
Speaker 1: is based on two partners supporting coll Weave I know
Speaker 1: will get there and Oracle. Now I'm referring, of course
Speaker 1: to Core Scientific, which is the data center developer for
Speaker 1: core Weave, and of course Crusos, the data center develer
Speaker 1: four Oracle. Now, if you were wondering, I can't hint
Speaker 1: it about this earlier how many data center how many
Speaker 1: DIIDENTA centers do you think Cruso's ever built, and the
Speaker 1: answer is none, And of course Scientific, how many do
Speaker 1: you think they've built and the answer is also none.
Speaker 1: These are the fucking companies underpending the AI boom. I
Speaker 1: also really must explain how difficult it is to build
Speaker 1: a data center, and how said difficult he increases when
Speaker 1: you're building an AI focused one. For example, in Video
Speaker 1: had to delay the launch of its Blackwell GPUs because
Speaker 1: of how finnicky the associated infrastructure, so the servers and
Speaker 1: the cooling and such is for customers. This was for
Speaker 1: customers that had already been using GPUs and therefore likely
Speaker 1: knew how to manage the temperatures created by them. Also
Speaker 1: is another reminder open eyes on the hook for nineteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars of funding behind Stargate, and neither of them
Speaker 1: have that money. I just want to remind you of that,
Speaker 1: because it costs so much money to build a fucking
Speaker 1: data center. And imagine if you didn't have any experience
Speaker 1: and effectively had to learn from scratch, how do you
Speaker 1: think it would be building these data centers? Let's find out.
Speaker 1: So let's start in Abilene, Texas with Crusoe and the
Speaker 1: Stargate Data Center project. Now. Cruso is a former cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: mining company that has now raised hundreds of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars to build data centers for AI companies, starting with
Speaker 1: a three point four billion dollar data center financing deal
Speaker 1: with asset manager Blue Owl Capital. This yet to be
Speaker 1: completed data center has now been leased by Oracle, which
Speaker 1: will allegedly fill it full of GPUs for open AI.
Speaker 1: Despite calling itself and I quote the industry's first vertically
Speaker 1: integrated AI infrastructure provider, with the company using flared gas
Speaker 1: as a waste by product of oil production to power
Speaker 1: I infrastructure, Cruso does not appear to have built a
Speaker 1: single AI data center and is now being tasked with
Speaker 1: building one point two Gigawatt's had a data center capacity
Speaker 1: for open Ai. It's just so fucking Cruso is the
Speaker 1: sole developer and operator of the Abilene site, meaning, according
Speaker 1: to the information that it is in charge of contracting
Speaker 1: with construction contractors and data center customers as well as
Speaker 1: running the data center after it is built. Oracle, it seems,
Speaker 1: will be responsible for filling said data center with GPUs
Speaker 1: as mentioned. Nevertheless, the project also appears to be behind schedule.
Speaker 1: The Information reported in October twenty twenty four that Abilene
Speaker 1: was meant to have fifty thousand of Nvidia's Blackwell AI
Speaker 1: chips in the first quarter of twenty twenty five, and
Speaker 1: also suggested that the site was projected to have a
Speaker 1: whopping one hundred thousand of them by the end of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. Now you can join me back here
Speaker 1: in reality, because a report from Bloomberg in March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five said the Open AI and Oracle we're expected
Speaker 1: to have sixteen thousand available by the summer of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, with and a quote open Ai and Oracle
Speaker 1: expecting to deploy sixty four thousand then video GB two
Speaker 1: hundreds at the Stargate Data center by the end of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six. That's that's very delayed. That's really delayed. Again.
Speaker 1: How I run a PR firm in that I record
Speaker 1: a podcast, I've write a newsletter, I have a book.
Speaker 1: I'm right in. I got all this shit on and
Speaker 1: I'm the asshole who notices this anyway, has discussed previously.
Speaker 1: Open ai needs this capacity very bad. According to the information,
Speaker 1: open ai expect stargate to handle three quarters of its
Speaker 1: compute by twenty thirty and these delays call into question,
Speaker 1: at the very least whether this schedule is reasonable, or
Speaker 1: logical or even possible. And I actually really question whether
Speaker 1: Stargate itself is possible at this point. But it can
Speaker 1: get dumber because we're about to talk about Core Scientific,
Speaker 1: and they are core Weave's friends. They're the people building
Speaker 1: data centers for core Wave in Denton, Texas. Now, as
Speaker 1: you can probably tell, I've written a great deal about
Speaker 1: core Wave in the past. That got a monologue, got
Speaker 1: a newsletter, and I got a therapy bill for it.
Speaker 1: And specifically I've written about their build out partner, Core Scientific,
Speaker 1: a cryptocurrency mining company, yes, another one that has exactly
Speaker 1: one customer for its AI data centers, and you'll never
Speaker 1: guess who it is. It's Core Wave. Now here's a
Speaker 1: few fun facts about Core Scientific. Core Scientific was bankrupt
Speaker 1: lotat year. Course Scientific has never built an AI data center,
Speaker 1: and its cryptocurrency mining operations were built around a six
Speaker 1: specialist computers for mining bitcoin, which led to an analyst
Speaker 1: to tell CNBC that said data centers would and I
Speaker 1: quote need to be buildozed and built from the ground
Speaker 1: up to accommodate AI compute. That's the stuff. Course Scientific
Speaker 1: also does not appear to have any meaningful AI compute
Speaker 1: of any kind. It's AI slash HPC, which is high
Speaker 1: performance computing. Revenue represents a teeny tiny, teeny little percentage
Speaker 1: of overall revenue, which mostly comes from mining crypto, both
Speaker 1: for itself and other parties. Now, hearing all of this,
Speaker 1: would you give this company your your compute? Would you
Speaker 1: think these are the people that I am going to
Speaker 1: call to build my data centers. If you said no,
Speaker 1: you are smarter than Corewave, who has given their entire
Speaker 1: one point three gigabat build out to Core Scientific. Course Scientific. Also,
Speaker 1: it seems they seem to be taking on like one
Speaker 1: point one four billion dollars of capital expenditures to build
Speaker 1: these data centers, which, by the way, is not enough money.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, Corwave has promised to reimburse them at eight
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety nine point three million of these costs.
Speaker 1: This is all from public filings. By the way, it's
Speaker 1: as one clear house course Scientific actually intends to do
Speaker 1: any of this shit. While they've taken on a good
Speaker 1: amount of debt in the past five hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: million dollars in the convertible note towards the end of
Speaker 1: last year, this would be more debt than they've ever
Speaker 1: taken on. It Also, as with Crusoe, does not appear
Speaker 1: to have any experienced building AI data centers, a point
Speaker 1: I keep repeating because it's very important. These are other
Speaker 1: companies behind the growth for open AI, except unlike Crusoe,
Speaker 1: Core Scientific is a barely functioning, recently bankrupted bitcoin minor
Speaker 1: pretending to be a data center company. Crusoe, on the
Speaker 1: other hand, is possibly also doing the same thing, but
Speaker 1: less egregious about it. Now, how important do you think
Speaker 1: core Weave is to open ai? Exactly? Well, that's our semaphore.
Speaker 1: Core Weaver has been one of our earliest and largest
Speaker 1: compute partners, open ai chief Sam Allman said in Corwave's
Speaker 1: roadshow video, adding that Corwave's compute power led to the
Speaker 1: creation of some of the models that were best known
Speaker 1: for Core. We figured out how to innovate on hardware,
Speaker 1: to innovate on data center construction, and to delve for results,
Speaker 1: very very quickly did it. But even if it did,
Speaker 1: will it survive long term? Going back to the point
Speaker 1: of the contagion. If open ai fails and core we fails,
Speaker 1: so too does course Scientific And I don't really fancy
Speaker 1: Crusoe's chances either. But let's take a step back for
Speaker 1: a moment. We've been going so hard, haven't we. I've
Speaker 1: got a genuine question, just for the fact finders out there.
Speaker 1: There's a Microsoft book. Open AI's computer's revenue now. Up
Speaker 1: until fairly recently, Microsoft has been the entire infrastructure backing
Speaker 1: open ai, but recently to free open ai up to
Speaker 1: work with Oracle and see other people, released it from
Speaker 1: its exclusive cloud compute deal. Nevertheless, put the information, open
Speaker 1: ai still intends to spend thirteen billion dollars on compute
Speaker 1: on Microsoft as there this year. What's confusing, however, is
Speaker 1: whether any of this is booked as revenue for Microsoft.
Speaker 1: Microsoft claimed earlier in the year that it surpassed thirteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars in annual recurring revenue, by which it means
Speaker 1: it's last month multiplied by twelve by the way, and
Speaker 1: they said it was from ai. Open AI's compute costs
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four or five billion dollars, and that's
Speaker 1: at are discounted as your rate, which on an anualized
Speaker 1: basis will be about four hundred and sixteen million dollars
Speaker 1: in revenue a month for Microsoft. It isn't, however, clear
Speaker 1: whether Microsoft counts open ai is computer's money, which is
Speaker 1: really fucking weird. You'd think with all this money they're
Speaker 1: making from this company, they'd be saying there was money
Speaker 1: coming in. It's peculiar. I've yet to find a real answer. Now.
Speaker 1: Microsoft sernings do not include an artificial intelligence section. No,
Speaker 1: They're made up of three separate segments, Productivity and Business Processes,
Speaker 1: which includes things like LinkedIn, Microsoft three sixty five and
Speaker 1: so on. More Personal Computing, which includes Windows and gaming products,
Speaker 1: and then Intelligent Cloud including server products and cloud services
Speaker 1: like A zero, which is likely where open AI's computers included,
Speaker 1: and where Microsoft book the revenue from selling access to
Speaker 1: open AI's models but not open AI's compute question. As
Speaker 1: a result, it's hard to say specifically where open AI's
Speaker 1: revenue might sit. Even guessing intelligent Cloud might not be right,
Speaker 1: but based on an analysis of Microsoft's Intelligent Cloud segment
Speaker 1: from financial year twenty twenty three Q one through its
Speaker 1: most recent earnings, and there was a spike in revenue
Speaker 1: from twenty three Q one to twenty four Q one.
Speaker 1: In financial year Q one, which ended on September thirtieth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, a month before Chat GPT's launch, the
Speaker 1: segment made twenty point three billion dollars. The following year,
Speaker 1: in FY twenty four Q one, it made twenty four
Speaker 1: point three billion dollars, a nineteen point seven percent year
Speaker 1: of a year growth, or roughly four billion dollars. This
Speaker 1: could represent the massive increase in training and inference costs
Speaker 1: associate with hosting Chat GPT, and they peaked at twenty
Speaker 1: eight point five billion dollars in revenue in the financial
Speaker 1: year twenty four Q four, before dropping dramatically to twenty
Speaker 1: four point one billion dollars in financial year twenty five
Speaker 1: Q one, and raising a little twenty five point five
Speaker 1: billion dollars in financial year twenty five Q two. I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry none of this is easy to read. This
Speaker 1: is a plausible explanation. Open ai spent twenty twenty three
Speaker 1: training its GPT four to Roho model before transitioning to
Speaker 1: its massive, expensive iryme model, which would eventually become GPT
Speaker 1: four point five, as well as its video generating model sourer.
Speaker 1: According to the Wall Street Journal, training GPT four point
Speaker 1: five involved at least one training run, costing around half
Speaker 1: a billion dollars in compute costs alone. These are huge sums,
Speaker 1: but it's worth noting a couple of things. First, Microsoft
Speaker 1: licenses open AI's models the third parties, so some of
Speaker 1: this revenue could be from other companies using GPT on Azure.
Speaker 1: We've seen lots of companies launch Ai products, and not
Speaker 1: all of them are based on l lambs mrieing things. Further,
Speaker 1: Microsoft provides open ai access to a zerr cloud services
Speaker 1: at a discounted rate, as I've mentioned in the past,
Speaker 1: and so there's a giant question mark over open AI's
Speaker 1: actual contribution to the various spikes in revenue for Microsoft's
Speaker 1: Intelligent cloud segment, or whether other third parties played a
Speaker 1: significant role. Furthermore, Microsoft's investment in open Ai isn't entirely
Speaker 1: cold hard cash. Rather, it's provided the company with credits
Speaker 1: to be redeemed on in see your services, kind of
Speaker 1: like Chucky cheese tokens. I'm not entirely sure how this
Speaker 1: would be represented in accounting terms, and if anyone can
Speaker 1: shed any light on this, please get in touch. Would
Speaker 1: it be noted as revenue or something else? Open Ai
Speaker 1: isn't paying Microsoft or are they? Are they doing the
Speaker 1: tech equivalent of redeeming air miles or have they spent
Speaker 1: a gift card of us? You're it really isn't obvious,
Speaker 1: and Microsoft is doing some accounting bullshit here and not
Speaker 1: suggesting impropriety, not suggesting anything illegal. I'm just saying it's
Speaker 1: insane that they have this company spending billions of dollars
Speaker 1: theoretically on their services and it's just nowhere. Additionally, while
Speaker 1: equity is often treated as income for tax purposes, as
Speaker 1: is the case when an employee receives RSUs as part
Speaker 1: of their compensation package, under the existing open Ai structure,
Speaker 1: Microsoft isn't actually a shareholder, but rather the owner of
Speaker 1: profit sharing units. This is a distinction worth noting. These
Speaker 1: profit sharing units are treated as analogous to equity, or
Speaker 1: at least in terms of open AI's ability to raise capital,
Speaker 1: but in practice they aren't the same thing. They don't
Speaker 1: represent ownership in a company as directly as, for example,
Speaker 1: a normal share would. They lack the liquidity of a
Speaker 1: share in the upside they provide, namely dividends is purely theoretical.
Speaker 1: Another key difference. When a company goes bankrupt and enters liquidation,
Speaker 1: shareholders can potentially receive a share of the proceeds after creditors, employees,
Speaker 1: and so on are paid. Well, that often doesn't happen
Speaker 1: as is, as in the liabilities generally, they can exceed
Speaker 1: the assets of the company. In many cases it's at
Speaker 1: least theoretically possible, given that profit sharing units aren't actual
Speaker 1: salaries or shares. Where does that leave Microsoft? This stuff
Speaker 1: is confusing, and I'm not ashamed to say that I
Speaker 1: just fucked up a word and that complicated accounting questions
Speaker 1: like these are far beyond my understanding. If anyone can
Speaker 1: shed some light, drop me an email, buzz me on
Speaker 1: Twitter or blue sky, hit me up on clerk or
Speaker 1: gorp or post on the better offline subware. Someone might
Speaker 1: take your wallet though. Anyway, back on track, I think
Speaker 1: it's worth understanding the scale of the open air vortex
Speaker 1: and how it's distorting the tech investment market and why,
Speaker 1: even without having failed, it represents the systemic risk. Without
Speaker 1: open ai, and American startup investment is flat, and even
Speaker 1: with it, less startups are receiving investment. Crunch based News
Speaker 1: reported in early April the North American startup investments spiked
Speaker 1: in Q one due to open Ai, hitting eighty two
Speaker 1: billion dollars. Great, right, sounds great? This statement sadly has
Speaker 1: a darker undertone. American star up investment was actually like
Speaker 1: forty two billion in Q one twenty twenty five when
Speaker 1: you remove the deal, which is appropriate because none of
Speaker 1: the money is actually received by open Ai yet and
Speaker 1: at best only ten billion dollars if it will be
Speaker 1: received before Sember twenty twenty five. This quarter also included
Speaker 1: a three point five billion dollar investment in Wormlight competitors
Speaker 1: Aroundthropic run by Warrio Amma Day, making the appropriate number
Speaker 1: of paltry thirty nine point five billion dollars. Now, this
Speaker 1: is still an improvement, though a marginal one over the
Speaker 1: thirty seven point five billion dollars raised in Q one
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. Nevertheless, crunch based news also has a far,
Speaker 1: far darker story. Your volume women in American startups has
Speaker 1: begun to collapse, trending downward almost every quarter or deal
Speaker 1: volume isn't the direct result of open AI's financial condition.
Speaker 1: The so called revolution created by open ai and other
Speaker 1: generative AI companies technology appears to be petering out, and
Speaker 1: the contagion is starting to impact the wider tech sector.
Speaker 1: It's important to understand how bleak things are the future
Speaker 1: of generative AI, wrest and open ai, and open AI's
Speaker 1: future rests on near and possible financial requirements. I've done
Speaker 1: my best to make this argument is in as objective
Speaker 1: a tone as possible, regardless of my feelings about the
Speaker 1: bubble and its associated boosters open Ai. As I've said
Speaker 1: before and argued countless times in interviews and podcasts and newsletters,
Speaker 1: it's effectively the entire generative AI industry, with its nearest
Speaker 1: competitor being less than five percent of its five hundred
Speaker 1: million weekly active users Anthropic, Google, Microsoft XAI. They're all
Speaker 1: rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. But open
Speaker 1: AI's future is dependent and this is not an opinion.
Speaker 1: This is an objective fact on effectively infinite resources in
Speaker 1: many forms. Let's start with the financial resources. If open
Speaker 1: ai required forty billion dollars to continue operations this year,
Speaker 1: it's reasonable to believe it will need at least another
Speaker 1: forty billion dollars next year, and based on its internal projections,
Speaker 1: will need at least forty billion dollars every single year
Speaker 1: until twenty thirty, when it claims somehow it will be profitable.
Speaker 1: And I quote the information with the completion of the
Speaker 1: Stargate Data Center project, you may be wondering, how's that possible? Ed?
Speaker 1: How you think the information wrote that down? Fuck no,
Speaker 1: just go Lesson's too busy humiliating people. She let go
Speaker 1: by name on Twitter, Ess Golesson. I like the information.
Speaker 1: I think you're a fucking asshole for how you treated
Speaker 1: your people. Say it on my podcast, I say it
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Anyway. Let's keep talking about some of these
Speaker 1: resources that open ai is dealing with, specifically the compute
Speaker 1: resources and expansion. Open ai requires more compute resources than
Speaker 1: anyone has ever needed, and will continue to do so
Speaker 1: in perpetuity. Building these resources is now dependent on two partners,
Speaker 1: Course Scientific and Crusoe. Though I've never built a data center,
Speaker 1: as Microsoft has materially pulled back on data center development
Speaker 1: and has as aforementioned, pulled back on two gigawads of
Speaker 1: data centers, slowed or paused. Of course, some of its
Speaker 1: early stage center products too, with TD Cohen's recent analyst
Speaker 1: reports saying that data center pullbacks were and I quote
Speaker 1: them March twenty six, twenty twenty five, data center channel
Speaker 1: checks letter because it's so good, driven by the decision
Speaker 1: to not support incremental open Ai training workloads, that's the stuff.
Speaker 1: In simpler terms, open ai needs more computer at a
Speaker 1: time when it's lead backer, which has the most GPUs
Speaker 1: in the world, has specifically walked away from building it.
Speaker 1: Even in my most optimistic frame of mind, it isn't
Speaker 1: realistic to believe that Cruso or Core Scientific can build
Speaker 1: the data centers necessary for open AI's expansion, even if
Speaker 1: soft Bank and open Ai had the money to invest
Speaker 1: in Stargate today, which they do not. Dollars do not
Speaker 1: change the fabric of reality. Data Centers take time to build,
Speaker 1: requiring concrete would steal in other materials to be manufactured
Speaker 1: and placed, and that's after the permitting required to get
Speaker 1: these deals done. Even if that succeeds, getting the power
Speaker 1: necessary is a challenge unto itself, to the point that
Speaker 1: even Oracle, an established and storied cloud compute company run
Speaker 1: by a very evil man at one point to quote
Speaker 1: the Information, has less experience than its larger arrivals in
Speaker 1: dealing with the utilities, to secure power and working with
Speaker 1: powerful and demanding cloud customers whose plans change frequently. A
Speaker 1: partner like Cruso will Core Scientific simply doesn't have the muscle, memory,
Speaker 1: or domainer expertise that Microsoft has when it comes to
Speaker 1: building and operating data centers. As a result, it's hard
Speaker 1: to imagine, even in the best case scenario, that they
Speaker 1: are able to match the hunger for compute the open
Speaker 1: Ai has now. I want to be clear, I believe
Speaker 1: open ai will still continue to use Microsoft's compute and
Speaker 1: even expand further into whatever remaining compute Microsoft may have. However,
Speaker 1: there is now a hard limit on how much of
Speaker 1: that there's going to be, both literally and what's physically available,
Speaker 1: and in what Microsoft itself will actually allow open ai
Speaker 1: to use, especially given how unprofitable GPU compute seems to
Speaker 1: be based on how every single company that isn't in
Speaker 1: vidio lose his money running them. But really, and we're
Speaker 1: coming to the end of this, which leads to a question,
Speaker 1: how does all of this end? Last week, a truly
Speaker 1: offensive piece of fan fiction framed as a report called
Speaker 1: AI twenty twenty seven went viral, garnering press with the
Speaker 1: Duiskesh podcast and gormles childlike wonder from Dope New York
Speaker 1: Times reporter Kevin Rus and reporter I think is a
Speaker 1: fucking stretch. Its predictions vaguely suggest a theoretical company called
Speaker 1: open Brain will invent a self teaching agent of some sort.
Speaker 1: It's total bullshit, but it captured the handsome minds of
Speaker 1: AI boosters and other people without object permanence because it
Speaker 1: vaguely suggests that somehow, large language models and their associated
Speaker 1: technology will become something entirely different. Like making predictions like
Speaker 1: these because the future, especially in our current political climate,
Speaker 1: is utter chaos. But I will say that I do
Speaker 1: not see, and I say this with complete objectivity, how
Speaker 1: any of this bullshit continues. I want to be extremely
Speaker 1: blunt with the following points, as I feel like both
Speaker 1: members of the media and tech analysts have categorically failed
Speaker 1: to express how ridiculous things have become. I will be
Speaker 1: repeating myself, but it's fucking necessary, as I need you
Speaker 1: to understand how untenable things are. Soft Bank is putting
Speaker 1: itself in dire straits simply to fund open Ai once
Speaker 1: this deal threatens its credit rating, with soft Bank having
Speaker 1: to take on what will be multiple loans to fund
Speaker 1: this forty billion dollar round, and open Ai will need
Speaker 1: at least another forty billion dollars a year later. This
Speaker 1: is before you consider the other nineteen billion dollars that
Speaker 1: soft Bank has agreed to contribute to the data center
Speaker 1: project with Stargate money it does not currently have available. Now.
Speaker 1: Open Ai has promised nineteen billion dollars to the Stargate
Speaker 1: Data Center project two and again they do not have it,
Speaker 1: and they need soft Bank to give it to them.
Speaker 1: And again I've said it, and I'll say it again.
Speaker 1: Neither of these companies have the money. The money is
Speaker 1: not there, and open Ai needs Stargate to get built
Speaker 1: to grow much further. I see no way in which
Speaker 1: open ai can continue to raise money at this rate,
Speaker 1: even if open Ai somehow actually receives the forty billion
Speaker 1: dollars it's been promised, which will require it to become
Speaker 1: a for profit entity, which I don't think it can
Speaker 1: fucking do. While it could theoretically stretch that forty billion
Speaker 1: dollars to the last multiple years, projections say it will
Speaker 1: burn three hundred and twenty billion dollars in the next
Speaker 1: five years, or more likely, I can't see a realistic
Speaker 1: way in which open ai gets the resources it needs
Speaker 1: to survive. It will need this insane streak of good fortune,
Speaker 1: the kind of which you only really hear about in
Speaker 1: Greek poems or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. You know, the more
Speaker 1: cultured choice, but let's go through them. Somehow soft Bank
Speaker 1: gets the resources and loses the constraints required to bankroll
Speaker 1: this company forever. The world's wealthiest entities, those sovereign wealth
Speaker 1: funds mentioned in the last episode, sounds and so on,
Speaker 1: they pick up the slack until open Ai receive they
Speaker 1: reach profitability, which is a huge assumption. It's also assuming
Speaker 1: that open ai will have enough of these megawealthy benefactors
Speaker 1: to provide it with the three hundred and twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars they need to reach profitability, which it won't. There'll
Speaker 1: also need Cruso and Core Scientific to turn out to
Speaker 1: be really good at building AI infrastructure, which they've never
Speaker 1: done before, which is that's very possible, I'm sure. And
Speaker 1: then Microsoft will then walk back its walk back on
Speaker 1: building UAI infrastructure and recommit to tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars of CAPEX, specifically on AI data centers, and also
Speaker 1: will give it to open Ai. And then, of course
Speaker 1: Stargate's construction happens faster than expected and there are no
Speaker 1: supply chain issues in terms of labor, building materials, GPUs
Speaker 1: and so on. Now I don't know, I haven't checked
Speaker 1: the news in the last three weeks, but is there
Speaker 1: anything going on that might increase the costs of materials?
Speaker 1: Probably not. Anyway, if those things happen, I'll eat quo.
Speaker 1: I'm not particularly worried. In the present conditions. Open ai
Speaker 1: is on course to run out of money or run
Speaker 1: out of compute capacity, and it's unclear which will happen first.
Speaker 1: But what is clear is it's time to wake up.
Speaker 1: Even in a hysterical bubble where everybody is agreeing that
Speaker 1: this is the future, open ai is currently requiring more
Speaker 1: money in more compute than is reasonable to acquire. Nobody nowhere, ever, anywhere,
Speaker 1: has ever raised as much money as open ai needs to.
Speaker 1: And based on the sheer amount of difficulty that soft
Speaker 1: Bank is having raising the funds to meet the lower tranche,
Speaker 1: the ten billion dollar one of its commitment, it may
Speaker 1: not actually be possible for this company to continue, even
Speaker 1: with the extremely preferential payment terms months long deferred payments
Speaker 1: for example that open ai probably has. At some point
Speaker 1: someone will need a dollar. I'll give Sam Ortman some
Speaker 1: fucking credit. He's found many partners the shoulder the burden
Speaker 1: of the rock economics of open Ai. With Microsoft, Oracle,
Speaker 1: Crusoe and Core We've handling the upfront costs of building
Speaker 1: the infrastructure, and SoftBank finding the investors for its monstrous
Speaker 1: stupid round, and the tech media mostly handling marketing for him,
Speaker 1: which is really nice, great job everybody. He is. However, overleveraged.
Speaker 1: Open Ai has never been forced to stand on its
Speaker 1: own two feet or focus on efficiency, and I believe
Speaker 1: the constant enabling of this ugly nonsensical burn rate has
Speaker 1: doomed this company. Open Ai has acted like it'll always
Speaker 1: have more money. In compute, And that's kind of because
Speaker 1: everyone's acted as that would be the case. No one's
Speaker 1: really called sam Altman out on his bullshit. There are
Speaker 1: some people, but really no one in the mainstream media
Speaker 1: has bothered. Really, Sam Altman has been enabled. Open Ai,
Speaker 1: by the way, cannot just make things cheaper at this point,
Speaker 1: because the money has always been there to make things
Speaker 1: more expensive, as has the compute to make larger and
Speaker 1: larger language models that burn billions of dollars a year.
Speaker 1: This company is not built to reduce its footprint in
Speaker 1: any way, nor is it built for a future in
Speaker 1: which it wouldn't have access to infinite resources. Worse still,
Speaker 1: investors in the media have run cover for the fact
Speaker 1: that these models don't really do much more than they
Speaker 1: did a year ago, and for the overall diminishing returns
Speaker 1: of large language models writ large. Now, I've had many
Speaker 1: people attack my work about open ai, but none of them,
Speaker 1: not one of them. Nobody has provided me any real
Speaker 1: counterpoint to the underlying economic argument I've made since July
Speaker 1: of last year, the open ai is unsustainable. Now this
Speaker 1: is likely because there really isn't one other than open
Speaker 1: ai will continue to raise more money than anybody has
Speaker 1: ever raised in history imperpetuity and will somehow turn the
Speaker 1: least profitable company of all time into a profitable company.
Speaker 1: This is not a rational argument. It's a religious one.
Speaker 1: It's a call for faith. And it's disgusting to see
Speaker 1: well paid reporters with one hundred and fifty thousand subscribers
Speaker 1: to the newsletters and a really shitty podcast with a
Speaker 1: major news outlet constantly just ignore them share and I
Speaker 1: see no greater payal horse of the apocalypse than Microsoft's
Speaker 1: material pullback on data centers. Well, the argument might be
Speaker 1: that Microsoft wants open ai to have an independent future.
Speaker 1: That's fucking laughable when you consider Microsoft's deeply monopolistic tendencies,
Speaker 1: and for that matter, it owns a massive proportion of
Speaker 1: open AI's pseudoequity. At one point, Microsoft's portion was valued
Speaker 1: at forty nine percent, and while additional fundraising has likely
Speaker 1: diluted Microsoft's steak, it still owns a massive portion of
Speaker 1: what is, at the very least, if you believe any
Speaker 1: of this nonsense, the most valuable private startup of all time.
Speaker 1: And we're supposed to believe that Microsoft's pullback, which limits
Speaker 1: open AI's access to infrastructure it needs to train its
Speaker 1: and run its models, and thus is mentioned represents an
Speaker 1: existential threat to the company. You meant to believe that
Speaker 1: this is because of some sort of paternal desire to
Speaker 1: see open ai leave childhood behind to spread its wings
Speaker 1: and enter the real world. Are you fucking stupid? Sorry?
Speaker 1: I shouldn't be calling people stupid. I shouldn't. I really shouldn't.
Speaker 1: But I am more likely Microsoft got would have needed
Speaker 1: out of open Ai, which has reached the limit of
Speaker 1: the models that can develop, and which Microsoft, by the way,
Speaker 1: already owns the ip of due to their twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: funning round. There's probably no reason for Microsoft to make
Speaker 1: any further significant investments other than just kind of throwing
Speaker 1: a little cash in there, and then I imagine some
Speaker 1: sort of tax dodge. I'm just guessing. It's also important
Speaker 1: to note that absolutely nobody other than Nvidia is making
Speaker 1: any money from generative AI. Core Weave loses billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: open Ai loses billions of dollars, Anthropic loses billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: And I can't find a single fucking company providing generative
Speaker 1: AI powered software that's actually making a profit. The only
Speaker 1: company is even close to doing so Are Consultancy is
Speaker 1: providing services to drain and create data for models like
Speaker 1: Churing and Scale AI, and Scale isn't even fucking profitable now.
Speaker 1: The knock on effects of open AI's collapse will be
Speaker 1: wide ranging. Neither core Weave nor Crusoe will have tenants
Speaker 1: for their massive, unsustainable operations. An oracle will have nobody
Speaker 1: to sell compute to because they've leased that thing for
Speaker 1: fifteen fucking years, or one customer who else is going
Speaker 1: to take that anyway. Cor we will likely collapse under
Speaker 1: the weight of its abominable debt anyway, which will lead
Speaker 1: to a six seven percent or more revenue drop for
Speaker 1: in video or a time when revenue growth has already
Speaker 1: begun to slow. On a philosophical level, too, open AI's
Speaker 1: health is what keeps this industry alive. Open ai has
Speaker 1: truly the only meaningful user base in generative AI, and
Speaker 1: this entire hype cycle has been driven by its success.
Speaker 1: Meaning any deterioration or collapse of open ai will tell
Speaker 1: the market what I've been saying for over a year.
Speaker 1: The generative AI is not the next hype of growth
Speaker 1: market and it's underlying economics do not make sense. But look,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this to be a hater. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying this to be right. This stuff has driven me insane,
Speaker 1: but I'm not doing it to be a pundit, to
Speaker 1: be a skeptic, to be a cynic, to be someone
Speaker 1: that hates because I want to hate. And I hate
Speaker 1: them not because I think people like me because I
Speaker 1: hate them. I hate them because I have brainworms. I
Speaker 1: have something wrong with me inside my brain that tells
Speaker 1: I have to be like this, and I have to
Speaker 1: look at these things and I have to try and
Speaker 1: find what's going on, otherwise I will be driven mad,
Speaker 1: which is why I'll say if something changes, if I'm
Speaker 1: wrong somehow, I promise you I will tell you exactly how,
Speaker 1: exactly why, and what mistakes I made to come to
Speaker 1: the conclusions I have in this episode and the episodes before.
Speaker 1: But I don't believe that my peers in the media
Speaker 1: will do the same when this collapses. But I promise
Speaker 1: you that they will be held accountable because all of
Speaker 1: this abominable waste could have been avoided. Large language models
Speaker 1: are not on their own the problem. The tools capable
Speaker 1: of some outcomes, doing some things, But the problem, ultimately
Speaker 1: are the extrapolations made about their abilities and the unnecessary
Speaker 1: drive to make them larger, even if said largeness never
Speaker 1: really amounted to much. Everything that I'm describing is the
Speaker 1: result of a tech industry, including media and analysts, that
Speaker 1: refuses to do business with reality, trafficking in the ideas
Speaker 1: and ideolo, celebrating victories that have yet to take place,
Speaker 1: applauding those who have yet to create the things that
Speaker 1: they're talking about, cheering on men lying about what's possible
Speaker 1: so that they can continue to burn billions of dollars
Speaker 1: and increase their wealth and influence for barely any fucking reason.
Speaker 1: I understand why others might not have said what I've said.
Speaker 1: What I am describing is a systemic failure, one at
Speaker 1: a scale here too unseen, one that has involved so
Speaker 1: many rich and powerful and influential people agreeing to ignore reality,
Speaker 1: and that'll have crushing impacts for the wider tech ecosystem
Speaker 1: when it happens. Don't say I didn't warn you. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer
Speaker 1: of the Better Offline theme song is Matasowski. You can
Speaker 1: check out more of his music and audio projects at
Speaker 1: Mattasowski dot com m A T. T O S O
Speaker 1: w Ski dot com. You can email me at easy
Speaker 1: at better offline dot com or visit better offline dot
Speaker 1: com to find more podcast links and of course, my newsletter.
Speaker 1: I also really recommend you go to chat dot where'soead
Speaker 1: dot at to visit the discord, and go to our
Speaker 1: slash Better Offline to check out I'll Reddit. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening. Better Offline is a production of
Speaker 1: cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media, visit
Speaker 1: our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us out
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts.