I thought Ed Zitrons argument was just corroborated by Nikkei last Friday with the new report that 1.6 Trillion in SPVs accounts for off-books debt, on top of the $1.4 Trillion of on-books debt that's in these AI companies?
The main argument of Ed Zitron is just that. Huge huge amounts of debt that's due "soonish". Every SPV is different but we are fast approaching the point where this all starts to become real.
Now I dunno why Ed Zitron feels the need to write 10,000++++ word articles that only says "more leverage than people expect", but that's really the crux of things.
It all comes down to the fact that Zitron thinks these AI companies are over levered and have significant chances of collapsing industry wide.
Yeah he uses more words to say it and bad arguments as part of it. But so did Galileo's "The tides prove that the Earth is moving around the sun" argument. Some arguments are bad, even if the overall point was correct.
I think given the new Nikkei report from last week, we are seeing more and more of Ed Zitrons arguments bear fruit, after years (literally) of him calling wolf.
It all is crazy talk until real numbers come out and prove him correct. But it seems to take a long time for those numbers to materialize.
And I'm sure Galileo didn't like the idea of geocentrinism either for irrational reasons. Seriously, good enough telescopes havent been made yet and he's all confident etc. etc.
But Galileo was still had a useful framework for his criticisms despite all of his faults.
----------
I see Ed Zitron in virtually the same spot. Especially now that the SPVs thing is publicly confirmed by 3rd parties. I agree he made a bunch of shitty arguments over the years but Ed Zitron has seemingly stumbled upon something true and worth investigating now
Maybe what's become more public is the scale of these SPVs, but Matt Levine's writing makes it seem like a sensible thing to do given the $$$ amounts involved.
That's totally fair, I was saying that Zitron has not discovered anything new, he just seems to have latched on to the next thing that lets him harvest anti-AI sentiment.
What I meant by "sensible" is, if you were in the hyperscalers' shoes and wanted to spend a trillion dollars that you didn't have while minimizing your risks and it's all legal, why would you NOT engage in this kind of financial engineering?
(I know the answer is something like "to avoid a potential economic crash," but hey, we're playing Capitalism here!)
I don't have a direct opinion about Zitron's economic takes. I don't have a stake in that argument, I don't do financial planning for inference providers or training, I'm open to a variety of arguments, in either direction, about viability.
But I have direct subject-matter expertise with software engineering, and too much of what Zitron has to say about AI-mediated software development is clownish. Not wrong (everyone's wrong all the time), but literally risible. I can't get past that.
My thing is: there are smart people doing analysis with skeptical takes. Zitron gets cited because he has a business engine going revving people up and arming AI skeptics with (what I believe to be) Gish Gallup takes. It's profitable for him, and I don't begrudge him, but when people I otherwise respect cite Zitron it makes me sad: Zitron is going to make fools out of them. Cite better skeptics!
“Per my own analysis, NVIDIA’s predicted $1 trillion in Blackwell and Vera Rubin GPU sales (by the end of 2027) represents around 40GW of data center capacity, which will, assuming a PUE of 1.35, result in around 30GW of usable capacity. At a cost of around $12 million a megawatt, that works out to around *$435 billion in global annual compute revenue to make these data centers necessary.*“
> He's a college drop out with no experience in programming or technology.
I mean Zuckerberg is a drop out.
zitron has been around since before flash was dead, more over hes worked in PR so like anyone with heavy involvement with c-suite, sales and journalism, you get a good nose for bullshit.
That said, do I agree with his assertions? no not entirely. But. I suspect its a bit of an audience capture thing. He makes wild statements, then goes on a flight of fancy to back them up. I appreciate that, but it also lets me decide that he's going down a path that I feel is not backed up by his data.
