u/ksjdragon

Why must we constantly entertain the delusions of these people? Over and over again, it's just nonsense.

We should also embrace more mortgage backed securities, which are of course the global future commodity.

> The statement, titled the “Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science,” begins by recognizing science and technology’s benefits to society then goes on to encourage research that integrates artificial intelligence. (The statement calls it “super intelligence,” given President Donald Trump’s recent executive order renaming the technology.)

> Michael Kratsios, head of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, spearheaded the vision statement, which also says the participating countries welcome the “growing field of metascience,” a term that describes the study of the scientific process itself.

> “Super intelligence applied to science will be an incredible force for democratization of research and breakthrough developments,” he plans to say.

> “The landscape has changed everywhere, the ground is moving beneath our feet, and we must all reinvigorate our research enterprise and lay new foundations for knowledge, innovation and prosperity,” Kratsios is expected to say in his remarks.

Yes, person who doesn't understand science talks about science. As the article mentions, the US has taken many efforts to directly undermine science.

> In September, the National Science Foundation announced that it would establish an Office of Metascience (OMS), charged with evaluating new approaches to funding and identifying which award mechanisms lead to the best scientific outcomes.

> “Through the OMS, NSF will become a learning, self-improving institution that tries new approaches, measures their effects, admits candidly when they do not work, and scales them when they succeed,” the agency’s acting director Brian Stone wrote in a letter.

> The Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to make drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research. Its proposed budget for the 2027 fiscal year would, for example, cut funding for the National Science Foundation by about half.

Not sure where the global part of this is. It's just the US coercing everyone to take part in their own delusions. It also seems we must take RSI rhetoric everywhere now.

> In September, the National Science Foundation announced that it would establish an Office of Metascience (OMS), charged with evaluating new approaches to funding and identifying which award mechanisms lead to the best scientific outcomes.

> “Through the OMS, NSF will become a learning, self-improving institution that tries new approaches, measures their effects, admits candidly when they do not work, and scales them when they succeed,” the agency’s acting director Brian Stone wrote in a letter.

I suppose a system in decline tries its best to present as capable and forward looking. The worse off one is, the more peacocking one ends up doing. But reading this is genuinely tiring. I'd have preferred flat earthers to this.

Long story short, Amazon makes data center propaganda.

> Amazon Web Services’ CEO Matt Garman said that communities would decide how to prioritize funds across “education, job training, energy affordability, water, and energy preservation, and local priorities.”

> Laying out other community commitments, Amazon also promised to ensure data centers wouldn’t increase power bills or wipe out local water supplies. Regarding the latter, Amazon promised to be “water positive” by 2030, while claiming that 75 percent of projects have already met this goal.

However, this is all in the face of the backlash they have gotten, and obviously they don't care about environmental damage.

> However, advocates at Stand.Earth—a global nonprofit that’s been fighting for environmental protections in communities hosting data centers—told Ars that Amazon is the one being “misleading” by spreading “corporate propaganda.” Seemingly in crisis mode as billions of dollars in data center projects have been blocked nationwide, Amazon’s promised donations represent “a flailing attempt at damage control for the harm its data center build-out has already caused,” Stand.Earth said.

> Most problematic, Stand.Earth suggested, is Amazon’s plan to back a power plant that experts expect will become the largest source of US climate pollution. Glaringly, Amazon’s data center commitments don’t mention the power plant and scarcely address pollution, apart from promising to exclusively rely on back-up generators that use the lowest possible emissions.

> “For all the claims Amazon makes about investing in carbon-free energy, it conveniently leaves out that it is constructing the single-largest source of climate emissions in the United States in Pecos, Texas,” Stand.Earth said. “Communities will face 33 million tons of harmful air pollution every year—with the power plant using the same amount of energy needed to run more than 1.9 million homes.”

> Although Amazon emphasized that most generators only run for “roughly 10 hours per year,” Stand.Earth cited cases where “Amazon data centers ran on diesel back-up power for days at a time.”

Let us also recall that the total CapEx Amazon has spent on AI, has been very large, at $220bn, and this is a trivial amount in comparison. Of course as we all know they've gotten just about no returns from their investments, but this is a sunken cost fallacy and there's no way out.

Looks like they're looking for even more money. Let's see if they can get it.

> According to Bloomberg, the round is designed to give OpenAI additional runway while it defers a public listing. CEO Sam Altman has said the company is stepping back from a public offering this year, describing the timing as "ill-advised" given OpenAI's ongoing work on AI safety. Investors are driving interest in the round, one person said, pointing to the company's robust revenue momentum.

> The company's annualized revenue has climbed past $40 billion, a figure that reflects 70% growth since July, Bloomberg reported. The outlet also reported that OpenAI has trimmed some of the usage allowances available to subscribers on its $200 plan.

The good 'ol annualized revenue. Let us remember that Anthropic has $4.6B in revenue of 2025 from the recent leaked prospectus, while they reported $10.6B of ARR in January 2026.

I will be very interested to see if they can get funding from non-hyperscalar sources.

As data centers are largely bipartisan it seems Republicans too must acquiese in some capacity:

> “Simply put, Texans must come first,” Abbott said. “Data centers must pay their own way, protect our ⁠grid and water, and complete the (audits)," Abbott said in a statement.

> Texas grid regulators have estimated that their ⁠audit of data centers could last until late next year.

Of course, this is merely a delay and not a ban. However, such delays are quite bad for the industry, as it then delays the underlying debt payments - not from the data centers to the PE or PC firms, but the larger debt PE and PC firms have taken on to finance such things, which will make their LPs quite unhappy. I frankly don't think this industry will last a year, so let us see what happens.

Archived/free article

I've been pushing this point for a while, but investors and fund managers simply don't have the appetite for more AI investments. Anyone who has invested already is already in, and more exposure doesn't make sense. Either you are allowed to go all-in and you already have, or you have a responsibility to diversify:

> But for Monte Tarbox, the pension funds’ chief investment officer, ... his job is to diversify, and right now he sees AI everywhere he looks. > “I said to the manager, ‘We have to pass on this precisely because we don’t know when enough is enough or when it’s too much,’” he said, referring to the current AI cycle. “When that day comes, we don’t want to be hung out to dry and somebody says, ‘Well, why did you say yes to everything?’”

> Tarbox’s predicament is representative of almost every major institutional investor on Wall Street and beyond just now. Managing vast piles of cash first and foremost comes down to spreading it out across assets to avoid concentrated risks. But the depth and breadth of the AI revolution has turned the usual diversification they rely upon into an illusion.

For the people that have already invested, there's no strong reason to pivot to frontier labs as they make the lowest profit margins while companies up the supply chain make more, e.g. data centers/inference providers, chip manufacturers, and memory fabs.

People who need to avoid have a hard time avoiding, which means the demand for AI debt and investments is necessarily limited:

> About 40% of the S&P 500’s total market value is comprised of AI infrastructure companies including chipmakers and hyperscalers, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Shares of just three chipmakers make up more than a quarter of the benchmark for emerging markets. AI accounts for nearly half of all investment-grade bond issuance this year and 87% of venture capital funding, data compiled by Apollo Global Management show.

But this is rather interesting evidence pointing to the fact that the broad market is not blindly invested to AI.

> “At some point you’re going to have enough infrastructure. And we’ve seen this a hundred times over history. Whether it’s railroads, whether it’s the internet. It’s going to happen, it’s just a question of when.”

However, as we see with the Nscale S-1, it's abundantly clear that infrastructure business is doing quite terribly. People can argue that infrastructure companies have larger operating losses in the beginning, and this is true. However, certainly within reason of no more than 100%! Nscale has a spectacular 2308% net loss in 2025, showing the complete unprofitability of renting GPUs for AI inference and training.

> CIO Jonathan Grabel subsequently led a review of LACERA’s [Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association] investments... they estimated that between 8% and 19% of the pension’s holdings were exposed to AI.

This is certainly significant for pension funds, but this also means plenty of capital is not available for more investment, meaning appetite for hyperscalar bond issuance and etc. has clear limits. It is still my stance that neither OpenAI or Anthropic will be able to IPO for this very reason - insufficient demand from the broader market. Those who can be exposed are already exposed to better investments and those cannot be exposed more are locked.

No way.... SoftBank? Dependent on OpenAI? I thought the Goose was valuable! The golden egg hasn't even hatched yet how can you be dependent? Why don't you just make some more Masayoshi? We are all waiting.

> "This concentration means that our near-term revenues, project-level financing arrangements, and development plans are significantly linked to OpenAI's continued performance under our lease and related agreements," the filing states.

As I posted yesterday, SoftBank is trying to raise money to pay back a previous loan, for OpenAI. Although they are being valued as junk bonds, I do believe the lack of appetite is important to the broader market of AI liqudity supply.

Although there is more excess liqudity that could be invested I am still skeptical that any of it is available or interested in AI investments. Is there any individual who would have been interested that isn't already exposed? My bet would be on no.

> While the company hasn't announced pricing or a specific timeline for its debut, it could begin trading as soon as this month, The Wall Street Journal reported. According to the Journal, the company is looking to raise between $5 billion and $7 billion from the offering.

Reported by Reuters, the valuation is $50B, so they are floating 10-14% which is not uncommon. That's not that much compared to these AI valuations. What happened to Goose value, Masayoshi? Really you should be worth at least $10T, isn't that right?

> The IPO prospectus also flagged the growing public backlash against data centers as a risk factor.

> "We may face community opposition, local moratoria and hyper-local dissent, including growing public resistance to AI and AI-related infrastructure, that may adversely affect our data center and power generation businesses and operations," the filing read.

> Among other risks the company disclosed in its S-1 were technological advancements that "could render our facilities obsolete or unmarketable," failure of businesses to adopt AI, regulatory changes and decelerating capex from hyperscalers.

> Mentions of OpenAI are almost as plentiful as Softbank itself, showing up 306 times throughout the S-1 compared to Softbank's 325. Nvidia is mentioned 135 times.

I would be interested if u/ezitron could do a deep dive on this in a newsletter. It's interesting that they themselves acknowledge these risk factors, but I suppose that is what you are supposed to do. Does the SEC even care anymore? The demand for these IPOs is something I'm curious to see. If SB Energy's performs poorly it would be quite a sour note for the market as a whole, since it's essentially by proxy a statement on market sentiment for the OpenAI IPO. Time will tell.

Free article

SoftBank seems to need even more money to just repay it's previous loan. As Ed has mentioned, it's very likely the survival of not just Oracle, but SoftBank is riding on OoenAI, which is not doing very well.

> Proceeds from the sale would partly be used to repay a $40 billion bridge loan secured earlier this year for its OpenAI investment, and also for other AI investments, the people said. Junk-rated SoftBank, founded and led by billionaire Masayoshi Son, is slated to invest close to $65 billion in OpenAI by October, funded in part by loans.

> SoftBank’s 8.5% dollar bond fell 2.3 cents to about 98 cents after the news, set for the biggest daily drop since it was priced in April. Meanwhile, the cost of insuring the company’s debt against credit risks jumped, with credit-default swaps widening 10.7 basis points, the most in more than a month, according to data from CMA.

It seems the market is aware of this too, as CDSs (credit default swaps) have been widening for Oracle as well, seen two weeks ago, and with SoftBank.

Granted, it's unclear where they will get the money from. They likely wish to tap US liquidity, but as mentioned in a previous post, the demand for liquidity is quite high, and the supply is questionable.

This is about the broader economic impact that AI hyperscalars have. I believe this has been mentioned by u/FrankLucasV2 with some other posts from Bloomberg, specifically about hyperscalar bonds taking up a plurality by DTS of the bond market, looking at the IG index.

Due to the high issuance of debt by the hyperscalars, the market is having trouble 'digesting' all of it, due to a lack of liquidity. As hyperscalars need trillions of debt and more, this is natural as not only has a lot of liquidity been previously captured by AI investments, the broader private equity and venture capital market has been having a liquidity crisis - something Ed has mentioned before, in reference to the TVPI of top 10% of VCs being around ~1.2, meaning the best earners only have a 20% return, and many may have negative return.

"Wall Street veteran Ed Yardeni" claims the recent pressure on US bond yields is in part due to the massive issuance of hyperscalar debt. As per the article:

> But in the case of AI-related bonds, demand has been so high that the yield spread has remained compressed, barely widening for an additional premium, he pointed out in a note on Monday.

For non-finance people (including myself), yields up for bonds (typically) means lower demand and yield *spread* is a notion for the percentage above US bond yields. As in, the difference one would make over investing in a US bond.

> “As a result, the market has adjusted not through higher corporate borrowing costs relative to Treasuries but through higher Treasury yields themselves. Capital flowing into corporate bonds is capital not flowing into Treasuries, and Treasury yields have had to rise to clear the market,” Yardeni explained. “In short, the AI revolution is producing a classic crowding-out effect, causing Treasury yields to rise.”

Of course, this is not the only reason. The US has many other inflationary and geopolitical pressures pushing bond yields higher. However,

> ... Yardeni noted that international capital-flow data show that net purchases of U.S. corporate bonds by private-sector foreign buyers have exceeded their purchases of Treasury debt over the past year.

It's unclear to me, what sort of impact this would have macroscopically. One can argue that this is temporary until the market coughs up the liquidity to buy all hyperscalar debt, and treasury bonds and other market measures return to the status quo.

However this seems unlikely to me, noting the necessary commitments the AI industry as a whole has - it doesn't seem they could stop here. It is highly likely hyperscalars are in a continuous desperate need for cash to fund buildouts and circular financing, and will look towards private credit now that the debt market could very well be tapped out.

Projecting the relative growth rates of AI industry CapEx and AI revenue thus far would give us two non-intersecting curves, so it's unclear when hyperscalar demand for liqudity would lessen, let alone stop. Under the continued US bond yield pressure, we may see further downward dollar pressure as other international US debt holders change hands for AI hyperscalar debt.

This would seem to contribute cyclically to inflation and the large pile of poor US economic situations and an ongoing energy crisis, thereby pushing up yields higher, and so the US debt. This is of course, at a time where our recent budget for the military was increased by $500B for 2027.

Another lawsuit to AI firms and counting. Must be difficult having everyone sue you. Almost as if you're doing something illegal like stealing.

How will they get the money for the legal fees? It's all being spent on compute!

> It alleges Anthropic unlawfully trained its models off "tens of thousands" of music publishers' copyrighted compositions, whereas other lawsuits have focused on a narrower set of works.

> BMG's lawsuit against Anthropic, for example, claims infringement against 493 compositions.

> Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann have conducted a brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works on a massive scale in order to develop, operate, and reap enormous profits from Anthropic's 'Claude' series of artificial intelligence ('AI') models," the plaintiffs write in the 48-page complaint.

> They also claim that Anthropic pirated thousands of copyrighted musical works and ask for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages per infringed work.

Music industry got to YouTube, even when we can argue it could be fair use. AI has far less of an argument. Good luck, Clammy and Wario.

In short, the Seventh Circuit court was forced to rule this due to a previous ruling in 2002. This is in reference to a case about a Wisconsin man, Steven Anderegg, who had hundreds of AI generated CSAM.

> Anderegg was charged with producing and distributing the AI-generated material, transferring it to a minor under 16, and possessing it. A federal district court dismissed only the possession charge on First Amendment grounds, leaving the other three charges intact.

The unfortunate reason for this ruling is due to a previous ruling.

> The Seventh Circuit said it was bound by a 2002 Supreme Court decision that rejected restrictions on sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their creation. But two judges warned that modern AI can now generate images virtually indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children.

> The Supreme Court previously ruled in Free Speech Coalition that taking images of real children and "morphing" them into sexually explicit poses would not be protected under its ruling on the possession of child sexual abuse material depicting fictional children because the practice involves the interests of real children.

Very disturbing. Another win for the pedophiles.

Another data center opposition. Seems these are getting quite commonplace, following this sub.

> He only knows two things: he’s tired of it, and it’s coming from DataOne – a 350MW datacenter under construction a little more than a mile from his home of 25 years.

> “It woke me up probably around, I don’t know, somewhere around 2 o’clock in the morning,” said Brown, who was weary by mid-afternoon. “I couldn’t get back to sleep, because once you hear it, it’s all you can hear.”

What I find most interesting is this is the noise already from presumably far less than 350MW, and likely maybe no more than 50MW. We would imagine the sound will scale, so it only gets louder from here.

> Experts describe this as important for people living with the thrum of a nearby industrial facility, because low frequencies are known to travel long distances and can be experienced as vibration.

> “Effects like hum, whooshing, whistling,” occur in “very narrow frequency bands in the low frequency range”, said Banks. “That noise … is coming right into people’s homes.”

> Another plaintiff in the Vineland suit, Michael Gentile, 63, said he “found out it was a datacenter after I began to hear the noise... I said, ‘I know you guys are testing for sound, but what about vibration?’ I said, ‘Can you feel that?’ I could feel it on my porch."

Let's see if these go anywhere. One thing I would be curious is if anyone knows how these deals work if they don't complete up to their claimed wattage and just run the data center as is at 10-50MW. What happens to the money that is potentially unused?

Of course, if the money is already paid upfront for NVIDIA's GPUs that'll be extra bad for them, but they shouldn't... be that dumb... right?

Also on CNBC.

Well, I guess we can add another commitment to that list of what, $800B? Another hypothetical commitment they'll never pay. Ed can add this to the list.

Also, wasn't Nscale the one with the data center that's just a scrapyard that isn't going anywhere? I suppose it's just as useful at providing inference, so really what's the difference?

> As part of the agreement, Anthropic will rent around 460 megawatts of compute capacity at an Nscale data center development in West Virgina, according to two people with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named because the details are confidential. Anthropic will leverage Nvidia’s advanced Vera Rubin chips through the facility, which is expected to come online at the end of 2027, the people said.

Ah, yes. Another 460MW that doesn't exist and won't exist. Add that to the hypothetical 10GW. I'm also actually an inference provider, I have a 4TW data center right under me right now.

Also, "Anthropic will leverage advanced Vera Rubin chips." How? They need specialized cooling and different rack systems so you would need to have those by for the data center to come online. This is supposed to your hypothetical address capacity issues right? How are chips and racks that haven't been fully designed or manufactured in hypothetical data centers that haven't been fully built or constructed with electricity not fully connected supposed to help you with your capacity?

Hypothetical capacity problems are only solved with hypothetical compute and hypothetical data centers, I suppose.

A slight rant. I'm pretty tired of being forced to live in their actual fantasy land. They're basically playing a tabletop sim with real lives and real money, I suppose larping as some chaotic good character while causing unimaginable harm to the rest of the world. There's another article somewhere about companies signing an agreement to stop rogue AI. What do you mean, rogue AI? It's literally YOUR fucking software that you control and you tell it to commit crimes.

Too bad it couldn't have been more.

> Meta also violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting and using the personal data of residents under 13, the states alleged. Meta denied the claims.

> In a statement on Wednesday, Meta called the settlement an important step and encouraged other social media players to implement safety measures to protect youth.

> "We just announced an agreement with a bipartisan group of 52 Attorneys General across U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia to set a new industry standard, building on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens," a Meta spokesperson said in an email. "While this is an important step, these protections will only be truly effective if our peers-TikTok and YouTube-put the same measures in place."

> As part of the settlement, Meta will pay at least $12.1 billion over the next 10 years to the coalition states that sued and an additional $5 billion if other social media companies, including YouTube and TikTok, agree to settlements in the future, state attorneys general said.

I think it's likely Google and TikTok will agree, this is nothing to them in terms of immediate costs, unfortunately. Well, I suppose you can't fine them more compared to how much they shovel in for AI debt and CapEx so, it is what it is.

Unfortunately, the supposed protections will likely prove useless, and the age verification, is likely another way to collect facial data and other things. Perhaps now Zuck can know which Facebook accounts are perfect to sell to the pedophiles.

> Meta will put in place new child safety measures under the settlement, including a two-hour daily time limit for teens; a restriction barring minors from accessing Facebook and Instagram at night; and muted push notifications during school hours.

> Meta will also enact changes to better verify the ages of its users who are under 18 and implement stronger, more user-friendly parental controls and limits on social-comparison features, such as "like" counts.

It's too bad we won't be getting any privacy laws from this, but I suppose it's better than nothing.

Looks like it's not looking good for Meta.

> Bejar, the states' first witness, said Zuckerberg was closely involved in much decision-making, and the Menlo Park, California-based company's top-down culture ensured that product design changes would occur only if he ordered them.

> "If Mark makes something a priority, mountains move in months," Bejar said.

> He disputed Zuckerberg's October 2021 comments following allegations by whistleblower Frances Haugen that Meta knew its products were unsafe for children and knew how to make them safe, but did nothing in order to pursue higher profits.

> Zuckerberg said at the time that Meta constantly used research to improve its products. In response, Bejar said he emailed Zuckerberg to flag his safety concerns.

> "It's so false, every part of it," Bejar said. "You just cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids."

> Meta, he said, had technology to flag potentially millions of users suspected to be under age 13, but adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy because it would boost profits longer-term.

Unsurprisingly, Zuckerberg is evil, and chooses profits above all. Let's hope we can see something good come out of it.

Not sure how to describe it. Another Ed interview!

> "The most accurate criticism of AI companies, including Anthropic, is that we haven't yet delivered on our big promises to benefit the world."

> "The thing that will work is actually curing cancer," he added.

HA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, CURE CANCER???!!!

Bacteria have a higher chance of evolving into a cancer cure than you Wario Wanksalot.

> "I do not agree that my messaging has been disproportionately negative," he wrote.

And I do not agree that we shouldn't lock the rest of you for committing fraud and cyber security attacks. We don't get what we agree on.

> "We hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months," he wrote. "When we've actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that."

Sigh. What annoys me the most is they are going to come out with some nonsense they market as a cure for cancer. Or worse, something that is actively deadly but the say is a cure. Perhaps they can skip human trials if they give the government enough money. Hell if I know.

What a fucking joke. A truly despicable, horrible man.

> Anthropic is projecting 2028 revenue of roughly $190 billion to $200 billion, according to ‌two people familiar with the company's financials, a figure that has not previously been reported. The projection dwarfs the $47 billion revenue "run rate," reflecting the firm's current pace of business, that the company publicized as recently as May, and shows the scale of growth investors are being asked to underwrite.

Uh-huh. Oh they'll get there alright. Definitely.

> The approach reflects the difficulty of valuing an AI company whose margins are still being pressured by enormous spending on computing power, model training and hiring. Investors are betting that as Anthropic grows, revenue will rise faster than the costs required to support that growth, allowing margins to expand.

Yep. If only that was possible. Too bad more revenue necessarily means more costs since inference isn't profitable at this rate, and no technological improvement can save them, as it's mathematically impossible at this price point. Small detail though, I'm sure Claude will figure it out.

> Anthropic is spending enormous amounts on ⁠GPUs and other computing capacity, model training, inference and hiring. Those expenses are necessary to support its rapid expansion but could become a smaller percentage of revenue as the business grows.

Nope. It can't. Impossible, actually. Moving on.

> The company's financial trajectory already shows how quickly that equation is changing. Anthropic's revenue run rate was about $9 billion at the end of 2025...

Wait. Come on journalist. Even if we take ARR at face value (which we shouldn't!), please tell me you know the difference between revenue and profit. Because the R in ARR stands for revenue. Are you kidding me? The equation isn't changing unless you SHOW THE PROFIT. Sigh.

> "Could they (Anthropic) get a $2 trillion valuation, yeah they could and I just wonder if it would stay there over time," said David Merkel, a principal at investment firm Aleph Investments.

> "Does it (AI) really produce so much additional productivity... These are just questions that we have to ask if we were thinking of pricing this, buying this."

I'll answer for them: no and no. Happy gambling.

> Research Gold, a site that advertises services for medical researchers, including drafting peer-review ready manuscripts, systemic reviews and meta-analyses, claims that it’s “100% human-written, never AI,” and lists a number of PhD reviewers and professional methodologists on staff that carry out this meticulous, difficult work.

> The problem: The PhD reviewers Research Gold lists on its site are AI-generated and don’t exist. Other methodologists it lists are real, but are not aware their identity is being used by Research Gold. When I tried calling the company, an AI agent that refused to concede it was AI answered and kept trying to sell me Research Gold’s services. Email and chat communication with the company were also AI generated.

What can I even say about this? Liars and liars and more liars.

Another example of our corrupt SEC foregoing any and all responsibility to actually regulate anything.

> The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has made it easier for data center ‌owners to sell asset-backed securities, as the AI boom expands deeper into financing markets.

> "We agree that the fixed-income or other securities issued in data center securitizations of the type described in your (Latham & Watkins's) letter are not asset-backed securities," the ‌U.S. ⁠markets regulator said.

Which means, great! We can let these investors repeat '08 to their heart's content!

> The ChatGPT maker bought back shares from current and former employees rather than tapping outside investors for the tender offer, said two people, who spoke on condition of anonymity as the information is not public. The deal valued the startup at $852 billion, the people said, unchanged from its most recent funding round.

Unfortunately, I can't read the full article, but this is really strange behavior, I feel. To my knowledge this hasn't been done before, at least not with any big company like this. Why would you buy shares from your own employees at this point?

One interpretation is that employees wanted to run, and were not confident that OpenAI could successfully IPO, so this is their way of tying them over. Which means there is a severe lack of confidence internally in OpenAI. Frankly, I can't think of another interpretation, as it's not as if OpenAI is heavily diluted.

What are everyone's thoughts?