guys, i completely missed the AI bubble. now what do i do ?
>>62358153The fuck is palm? Was that as hyped up as SpaceX?
>>62358174https://companiesmarketcap.com/palm-inc/marketcap/
>>62358153SpaceX is a minor player in AI and is far from their leading asset.
>>62358273lol you haven't been keeping upElon has already pivoted to "data center in space"
>>62358174They were the proto-smartphone, definitely a big deal at the time.https://youtu.be/uXEnblNKfvA?si=leJybPbmmK8ttTyB
Find pre-dumped stuff. Avoid too much tech and don't buy too much of anything.
>>62358174what everyone used before blackberries
>>62358153put your money where your mouth is and short it
>>62358273Before this retarded AI shit SpaceX would've never had an IPO anywhere near this
>>62358273Doesn't matter. The current valuation is completely propped up by the space data center narrative. The entire USA economy in general at the moment is riding on the data center hype. Even fucking banks and real estate investment companies are mainly projecting revenue increases on loans/real estate sales related to building data centers.
>>62359344>space data center narrativeI feel like even normies are starting to turn into picrel now. Its all become too silly.
>>62359144Peter Schiff tweets Bitcoin FUD every day, you based cherry picker.
>>62359394Why is putting a data center in space such a wacky notion?
>>62358153People claim the bubble has burst every day.
>>62359468Think of any business/operation, then put "in space" at the end and that will answer your question. At this point if Elmo said he's starting a start waterpark in space, there will be enough dunces to think he's onto something with that. Also a few dunces who think they're better than the other dunces and can get in early + cash out on time because the market is irrational
>>62358153I don't know.nit feels different. They can't let it pop. It's over for them if it does, they know this
>>62359568>putting a water park "in space" sounds stupid, so putting what is basically a giant computer in space is also stupid
>>62359584Why can’t you put a water park in space?
>>62359468because it costs 999999x times more to build and maintain than on earth ?
>>62359656factor in cookie warning fines, gdpr compliance costs and other retarded inane shit you have to deal with if you host your website on this cursed rock
>>62359468Calculate how much solar panels and how much surface you'll need to power up the equivalent of a data center in space, even a small one.Do it.I say it again, do it.
ride the spacex cock and sell before going all-in on anthropic
>>62359666>Do it. I say it again, do it.oh my satan, so much thiswhy are redditors like this
>>62359584>basically a giant computer in spaceA tiny computer that basically requires you to operate a nuclear power plant in space, basically launch the equivalent of a city block of weight into space with multiple lunar-class heavy rockets, then basically do regular maintenance and refueling on this trash so it doesn't fall from space. Basically it sounds just as stupid as a waterpark in space unless you're a moron
>>62359662I don't think keeping CP in space is a good idea
>>62358174Get a load of this zoomer.
>>62359666That's really not as big of a problem as you make it out to be, especially considering the higher intensity of solar radiation and the nigh-unlimited size of any such facility>>62358153You didn't miss shit. It's a tech revolution that is going to automate 90% of white collar work, greatly multiplying the productivity of each individual office worker and/or greatly reducing payroll expenses for all offices. People, boomers especially but also people in general, including both retail and non-retail investors, largely do not understand this. There is a fucking reason so many big players are all-in on AI, and you should be too.
>>62358153just wait for a crash, everything has to crash at some point.
>>62359724>the nigh-unlimited size of any such facilityAnd how are you planning to get it up there? FedEx?
isnt this fundamentally different? internet made communications faster but AI will ultimately replace human
>>62359584You think data centers are giant computers? They're large buildings full of switch gear, wires, cooling and server racks
>>62359747He'll say Starship. Only to discard having to build bigger-than-football-stadium of solar panel structure just to power half of a data centerIt's retarded
>>62359747The point was that SpaceX is the only company capable of putting it up there, and that this contributes to its valuation. I don't actually agree honestly, I think terrestrial data center investment is more likely to win out since there's not a lot of good reason to put it up in space, I was just saying that the solar panel thing isn't that big of a deal
>>62359763And the most retarded part isn't even the dunning-kruger logistics of building such a facility. Lets say it magically appeared in space right now, for free - what value does it produce, why do we need it in the first place? Almost as if this is just another ponzi scheme that hinges on empty promises of future riches. Consult https://isaiprofitable.com/ to see who's the only one actually benefitting from the ai bubble (hint: it's not an ai company)>>62359776>capable of putting it up there[citation needed]
>>62359656wait until the one on earth start to get firebombed :)
>>62358273Yea the launch capability and Starlink is of more interest to me. With Starlink v3 and expansion of direct to cell on the horizon, I think it's got a lot of growth ahead.
>>62359656The biggest issue is maintenance there's no practical means of fixing anything that gets broken or worn down up there you can't man them
>>62358843Weird seeing failed ideas that would later become massive as the tech improved. Wonder if this what crypto is at the moment
>>62359624You might as well put water in your imagination.
>>62359468Space is only extremes, not temperates. If you go to one side of the planet, it's really fucking cold. Go to the other, it's really fucking hot. This is on TOP of radiation constantly bombarding each and every satellite to the point where humans have max time they are allowed to stay in orbit, graphics hardware is much, much, much, much more sensitive than that, and there is no "We'll just take it down and fix it" if your hardware breaks.Don't get me wrong, I would much rather them be in space than on Earth, it's just not realistically feasible.
>>62359759idk.. i look the growth rate and how insanely consistent it is, you can't see any innovation in the growth rate - other than the 2%, computers, internet, combustion engine, all just smooth into the 2%.Think it is likely AI will follow the same trajectory, that it will role out slower than expected, that it will take time to be implemented, and it's contribution will just be part of the 2% of next year etc.
>>62360874You could still see a greater reshuffling of stock value, like we seen in the past with oil and railroad stocks being the "big thing", then came manufacturing, then tech..AI, Robotics, Space (lol), it can all be the big dogs of tomorrows stock market. But it's harder to see a real "paragdime shift" in growth, i just think it will be slower than most people anticipate.
>>62359848Starlink and Starship are both game changers, unrivaled and unchallenged. Global assets both. As in all 8 billion people.People don't realise it. But SpaceX is already the #1 company in the world.
>>62358153The shit will tank, hard. That's when you buy and sit.
>>62358153Buy Polkadot>>62349823>>62349823>>62349823
>>62360680>If you go to one side of the planet, it's really fucking cold. Go to the other, it's really fucking hot.The main issue with heat in space is, you can't get rid of it easily. Convection and conduction don't work in a vacuum. If you run a bunch of power-hungry GPUs in a data centre in space, they're going to generate ton of waste heat that's effectively trapped on the station. Heat radiation is your only way of getting rid of it, but it's slow and inefficient at silicon (and life) safe temperatures.You'll either need some absolutely gigantic heat radiators on the station, or an unreasonably tiny amount of GPUs to keep the heat in check. Otherwise that data centre is going to store up heat until the GPUs fail, and then it's going to remain hot for a decent while, preventing repairs.
>>62359468>why is putting a giant energy guzzling, heat generating machine into a place with zero energy network and negative ability to disperse heat without also losing mass and also no ability to regularly service it fucking stupid?if there was a space elevator up and running then sure, go ahead and start making the orbital stations to house all this dumb shit but the idea of launching rockets to forge an entire nuclear powered city block is fucking retarded
>>62360680>The radioactive environment that's best at flipping bits randomly in digital components unless they are specially shielded>Let's put a whole datacenter up there
>>62358273yeah, not according to spacex though, they think AI has a market capitalization of 23 trillion lmao
>>62359724I dont know how to be all in on AI even tho i want to be
was the palm ipo even similar to spcx?
>>62359666>Calculate how much solar panels and how much surface you'll need to power up the equivalent of a data center in space, No, reactor in space.
>>62361734You want to own the stocks of the companies that produce the devices, chips and services that AI runs on. In short, compute (tokens are essentially a synonym for compute). The scarce physical resources that go into producing compute are GPUs, CPUs, memory, the interconnections between these commodities (the new hotnesses are CPO and 800V power), and energy and data center infra.Think of it like this. Already, and if not already, then very soon, you will be able to spin up with the press of a button an agent that generates more value to you than it costs to run it. So it may cost $1 of tokens to make it perform a task that produces $1.01 of value to you. At that point, why wouldn't you press the button a bazillion times to generate a bazillion agents that return $0.01 x bazillion profits to you, effortlessly, just like that? Because the rate limit at that point will be compute. At that point, there will be INFINITE DEMAND for compute. And it will never go away. And again, we may already be there. So you want to be positioned in the stocks of companies that are going to imminently (or again, perhaps, already) to experience INFINITE DEMAND for their products. Which are the aforementioned sectors. The AI models becoming more resource efficient or distilled or compressed or whatever doesn't change this equation. Once the models can reliably generate more value than it costs to run them, then demand ramps to infinity and stays there forever. Which is why this AI "bubble" is not like prior bubbles. Demand never reduces or goes away. It is not rate limited by the amount of people who exist to use the services, like the dot com bubble was. You can press a single button and create seventy trillion zillion artificial people who all want to use the compute to generate value for you. So demand never goes away, ever again. BAKA/SOXX/their components will never crash ever again.
>>62359732It crashed last week
>>62362110If you had an ai model that could make infinite money why would you give it away to the public?
>>62362110yeah but how do you find the task that gives more value than it costs?
>>62362139Because Elon hero space to the moon brahm in n
>>62358153This time its different
>>62359854Optimus robots
this chart is misleading as fuckit's made intentionally so they both look as steepthe dotcom bubble is vertical, because that happened in 10 years, yes, it's very steep and this is what a real bubble looks likethe ai bubble side compresses 28 years into the same chart as the dotcom bubble and makes it look a lot more vertical than it really isif you take a 28 year increasing slope, and compress it down visually the same as a 10 year slope, then it's going to look vertical as fuckliterally go to any normal QQQ chart, switch it to max, and you will see the recent bubble is a gradual inline not some fucking vertical mountain peak
>>62363181this is what the chart actually looks iikethis is not a bubble
>>62358843>>62359179Thank you for the knowledge, oldfags
>>62358153The main difference is that this time the cycle filled all bullish fvgs on the upside so we won’t crash
>>62358153buy anyway. we're going to the moon!
>>62359848What's the advantage compared to cell towers that already cover the vast bulk of the market?What will be the moat protecting Starlink from competition by ASTS and Qianfan DTC? Starlink will have more satellites, which will allow it to serve more users per square kilometer, but densely populated areas are already covered by terrestrial 5G.
>>62358273AI is 75% of SpaceX's capital expenditures
>>62363199> newfag retail investor copes with log chart just like cryptotards in 2021classic
>>62363536Towers are expensive, unsightly, and can't cover everywhere. Starlink works on aircraft and ships as well as spacecraft, and will eventually expand to a lunar constellation. Plus when you add a satellite you're not just adding capacity to one area, the entire network gains capacity.It's not going to make terrestrial towers or fiber obsolete any time soon, but there is still a lot of potential. Including military use.
>>62359892it's actually AR and VR
>>62359824Wait until you learn about missiles that can launch into space :^)
>>62363553Do you really believe comparing a 10 year time compressed chart to a 28 year time compressed chart is accurate, or are you just lying?Are you stupid, or are you full of shit, or both?
>>62363553>>62363595And valuations to earnings have been going down for the past 15 years. Price goes up, but price doesn't even keep up with earnings growth. There is no bubble.
You can try to get pedantic about chart methodology but there's no real refutation for the claim that values are historically high. Whether that portends an imminent crash is up to you.
>>62358153if you truly believed a crash was coming you could degen into SOXL puts or SOXS and make more money faster than the people that rode the AI bubble up.but you won't, you didn't have the conviction on the way up so why would you suddenly have it on the way down
>>62363647why should I give a shit what Buffett thinks of valuations?
>>62363061Those need maintenance too and aren't a real thing yet
