Since Cursor often relies on Claude models, some of those services will flow back to their own datacenter compute. Especially if there's, lets call it, "customer demand loadbalancing optimization agreements" that makes those Cursor services prioritize Claude models using the app keys that get load-balanced onto the SpaceX datacenter.
Did SpaceX just spend $10B to rent out its own datacenter, juicing their recurring revenue metrics with their own AI services investment?
With Anthropic's help. And when it's time for Anthropic to hype their IPO maybe SpaceX will return the favour and offer some deal that looks great to retail investors.
I don't think it's the conspiracy theory that you're making it out to be.
It is publicly known that the vast majority of deals in the AI space are circular in nature without the need for explicitly encoding any of it in a legal contract or even tacit agreements.
e.g. Nvidia has invested significantly in many AI companies including both Anthropic and OpenAI which rely heavily on Nvidia's hardware and will undoubtedly use some of said investment towards that end.
Nvidia and Oracle are already public companies, they're just aiming for their next quarterly statements.
SpaceX is getting dressed for their debutante ball and is putting on the makeup to make a grand entrance on the auction floor.
Is there a difference? I legitimately have no idea. You are right that we can add another entry to the list of interconnected circular dealmakings. All this ain't gonna end well next time the music stops playing.
Your argument is that since it is common in a bubble to make circular deals, there is no conspiracy. But you seem to suggest that people committing tens of billions of dollars aren’t looking any further down the pipeline than the name on the receiving bank account? Have you ever been anywhere near a large deal?
That's a lot to imply from my simple comment. My viewpoint is actually the exact opposite of what you claim: it all feels like a house of cards that is set to collapse at any moment. I can also tell you're quite passionate about this and I wonder if that emotion is clouding your interpretation of what was meant to be an innocuous comment.
My point was that there is a lot of this happening, it is not a unique statement nor is it surprising to see at this point.
I made no attempt to dismiss or justify any of it.
Sure, if "pretty smart" means overinvest in capital spending on an dirty datacenter powered by unpermitted gas generators that you don't even need anymore because of lack of demand for your product, so you lease it to a competitor (presumably at a huge loss). I am not sure that "major source of revenue" as a datacenter provider is the kind of growth opportunity that IPO investors are looking for.
Anthropic doesn't has that much pressure to pay while Musk has an IPO coming up and he wants to cleanup his numbers.
Its also not a good sign because he should be able to leverage Grok, his billion dollar investment, instead of renting it out to Anthropic. But hey what does it matter to investor? if the IPO explodes, it is clear that people either can't read, don't care or don't understand.
Says who? Oracle spends a lot of money to get ready for AI customers like OpenAI. They aren't there yet. They can't lose money serving what they don't have.
Its not even that. Its better to be involved in the game with a leader/help out a competitor who is competing against someone you don't like and don't want them to win, than to sit it out.
Are you worried about Google too? They're selling compute. Same with Microsoft, and Amazon. As far as I know Anthropic is really the only one that's compute-bound.
> As far as I know Anthropic is really the only one that's compute-bound.
I use gemini models daily. Jetbrains tells me when they are overloaded and switches to alternative (usually to openai which turns everything to shit). I'd say happens about fortnightly.
It's a good litmus and forecaster for AI demand and I wish we had more visibility.
Amazon is a bookseller and Google is just a web indexer. GCP didn't even open it's preview until 2008. Not sure why you think a business model is in any way a static thing.
Amazon is a compute specialist, their competitive advantage is in the compute business. And conversely they're not really trying to play in the AI business, so it's not at all suspicious that they don't want to use all their compute themselves.
