4 ms·

The US government is itself a major shareholder in Intel, and has every incentive to push Intel stock over its competitors. It's almost a certainty that Nvidia

by paxys 1y ago

The US government is itself a major shareholder in Intel, and has every incentive to push Intel stock over its competitors. It's almost a certainty that Nvidia was forced into this deal by the government as well. We are way beyond regulation here.

lawlessone 1y ago
What happens now if one of these companies implodes? does it pull everything with it?
- nradov 1y ago
  too big to fail
  - mmastrac 1y ago
    "too big to fail" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergrande_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergrande_Group
- YeahThisIsMe 1y ago
  Why would anything that isn't Intel implode? And what's "everything"?
  - smegger001 1y ago
    a plateauing in AI development leading to another AI Winter causing dotcom bubble 2 electric boogaloo.
    - yvdriess 1y ago
      If anything that would be a boost to Intel. One of their problems is GPU capex sucking the air out of the room.
      - smegger001 1y ago
        well the question i answered was "Why would anything that isn't Intel implode" and an AI winter and another dotcom boom would do that to everyone not named Intel.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Well, the AI bubble will eventually pop since none of the major AI chatbots are remotely profitable, even on OpenAI's eyewatering $200/month pay plan which very few have been willing to pay, and even on that OpenAI is still loosing money on it. And when it pops, so will Nvidia's stock, it's only a matter of time. The AI hype train was built on the premise that AI will progress linearly and eventually end up replacing a lot of well paid white collar work, but it failed to deliver on that promise by now, and progress has flatlined or sometimes even gone backwards (see GPT-5 vs 4o). FAANG companies can only absorb these losses for so long before shareholders pull out.
  - bdamm 1y ago
    The white collar worker doesn't need to be replaced for the bots to be profitable. They just need to become dependent on the bots to increase their productivity to the point where they feel they cannot do their job without the chatbot's help. Then the white collar worker will be happy to fork over cash. We may already be there. Also never forget that in technology moreso than any other industry showing a loss while actually secretly making a profit is a high art form. There is a lot of land grabbing happening right now, but even so it would be a bit silly to take the profit/loss public figures at face value.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >We may already be there. Numbers prove we aren't. Sales figures show very few customers are willing to pay $200 per month for the top AI chatbots, and even at $200/month, OpenAI is still taking a loss on that plan so they're still loosing money even with top dollar customers. I think you're unaware just how unprofitable the big AI products are. This can only go on for so long. We're not in the ZIRP era anymore where SV VC funded unicorns can be unprofitable indefinitely and endlessly burn cash on the idea that when they'll eventually beat all competitors in the race to the bottom and become monopolies they can finally turn a profit by squeezing users with higher real-world price. That ship has sailed.
      - blonder 1y ago
bee_rider 1y ago
The US government isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) profit-motivated anyway, so it isn’t obvious what their incentives are WRT Intel’s stock.
- nyc_data_geek1 1y ago
  Shouldn't be, yes. Isn't? Have you seen the rhetoric around tariffs? A lot of people thought they wanted the government run like a business, so welcome to the for-profit government society.
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago
  They can buy enough stock to shift the price, then use that as a lever to control their own investments prices (and thence profits). Like they've done with tariffs.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    That sounds more like an abuse of government powers for individual gain than any legitimate government interest. If that was the plan it would make just as much sense to short a company and then announce a plan to put them under greater regulatory scrutiny.
    - janc_ 1y ago
      You think they haven't done that sort of things yet?
      - bee_rider 1y ago
        Well, I wouldn’t be able to prove it if challenged. And anyway, it seems better overall to not start building the case that that’s just something we expect politicians to do. A shocking surprise needs to be a surprise for it to work. Call it strategic naivety if you want.
        nolist_policy 1y ago
sabhiram 1y ago
Yep, there is absolutely no problem with that at all. Never imagined politics so obviously manipulating the talking heads with nary a care about perception.
- throwaway984393 1y ago
  [dead]

by paxys 1y ago

lawlessone 1y ago

What happens now if one of these companies implodes? does it pull everything with it?

nradov 1y ago
too big to fail
- mmastrac 1y ago
  "too big to fail" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergrande_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergrande_Group
YeahThisIsMe 1y ago
Why would anything that isn't Intel implode? And what's "everything"?
- smegger001 1y ago
  a plateauing in AI development leading to another AI Winter causing dotcom bubble 2 electric boogaloo.
  - yvdriess 1y ago
    If anything that would be a boost to Intel. One of their problems is GPU capex sucking the air out of the room.
    - smegger001 1y ago
      well the question i answered was "Why would anything that isn't Intel implode" and an AI winter and another dotcom boom would do that to everyone not named Intel.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Well, the AI bubble will eventually pop since none of the major AI chatbots are remotely profitable, even on OpenAI's eyewatering $200/month pay plan which very few have been willing to pay, and even on that OpenAI is still loosing money on it. And when it pops, so will Nvidia's stock, it's only a matter of time. The AI hype train was built on the premise that AI will progress linearly and eventually end up replacing a lot of well paid white collar work, but it failed to deliver on that promise by now, and progress has flatlined or sometimes even gone backwards (see GPT-5 vs 4o). FAANG companies can only absorb these losses for so long before shareholders pull out.
- bdamm 1y ago
  The white collar worker doesn't need to be replaced for the bots to be profitable. They just need to become dependent on the bots to increase their productivity to the point where they feel they cannot do their job without the chatbot's help. Then the white collar worker will be happy to fork over cash. We may already be there. Also never forget that in technology moreso than any other industry showing a loss while actually secretly making a profit is a high art form. There is a lot of land grabbing happening right now, but even so it would be a bit silly to take the profit/loss public figures at face value.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >We may already be there. Numbers prove we aren't. Sales figures show very few customers are willing to pay $200 per month for the top AI chatbots, and even at $200/month, OpenAI is still taking a loss on that plan so they're still loosing money even with top dollar customers. I think you're unaware just how unprofitable the big AI products are. This can only go on for so long. We're not in the ZIRP era anymore where SV VC funded unicorns can be unprofitable indefinitely and endlessly burn cash on the idea that when they'll eventually beat all competitors in the race to the bottom and become monopolies they can finally turn a profit by squeezing users with higher real-world price. That ship has sailed.
    - blonder 1y ago

bee_rider 1y ago

The US government isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) profit-motivated anyway, so it isn’t obvious what their incentives are WRT Intel’s stock.

nyc_data_geek1 1y ago
Shouldn't be, yes. Isn't? Have you seen the rhetoric around tariffs? A lot of people thought they wanted the government run like a business, so welcome to the for-profit government society.
pbhjpbhj 1y ago
They can buy enough stock to shift the price, then use that as a lever to control their own investments prices (and thence profits). Like they've done with tariffs.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  That sounds more like an abuse of government powers for individual gain than any legitimate government interest. If that was the plan it would make just as much sense to short a company and then announce a plan to put them under greater regulatory scrutiny.
  - janc_ 1y ago
    You think they haven't done that sort of things yet?
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      Well, I wouldn’t be able to prove it if challenged. And anyway, it seems better overall to not start building the case that that’s just something we expect politicians to do. A shocking surprise needs to be a surprise for it to work. Call it strategic naivety if you want.
      - nolist_policy 1y ago

sabhiram 1y ago

Yep, there is absolutely no problem with that at all. Never imagined politics so obviously manipulating the talking heads with nary a care about perception.

throwaway984393 1y ago
[dead]