[neosat]

has anyone done the math on: 1. cost to build out and run the data centers 2. cost of compute (hardware and energy) 3. depreciation of legacy GPU and thus value at the end of 3 years.

And then compare the $45B revenue from Anthropic to see if it's mostly break even or if one of Anthropic/SpaceX came out ahead on the contract.

[electriclove]

Maybe it is a win/win. Anthropic gets desperately needed compute at a fair price. SpaceXAI sells compute at a fair price and gets desperately needed revenues.

[sroussey]

Tesla loses out on that revenue since it was their chips to begin with, right?

[oliv5900]

XAi purchased Teslas allocation of GPUs, in exchange for Tesla purchasing XAis allocation of GPUs at a later date. This they claim was done because Tesla didnt have their datacentre ready to receive those gpus at that time. I dont see how or who was robbed here.

[foobiekr]

No. xAI is buying Nvidia, not using Tesla chips.

[chatmasta]

SpaceX is already indicating their strategy on this, because they’re renting their last-gen data center to Anthropic and keeping the current-gen data center for themselves. Rinse and repeat.

[BoredPositron]

It's same gen.

[treis]

It has $25 billion on AI cap expenditure in the S1. So generally looks like a solid deal for SpaceX.

[impulser_]

Well Colossus 1 has 230k GPUs, including 30k GB200s and Colossus 2 has 550k GB200s & GB300s.

So my guess on costs would be like ~$10B for Colossus 1, and Colossus 2 would be like ~20b.

[denimnerd42]

a GB300 rack is like 5-6 million so seems a bit low.

[impulser_]

Yeah, maybe these aren't good guesses. I was basing it off CapEx and Elon's tweet about them. Maybe C2 isn't completely filled yet.

[foxylad]

Ed Zitron https://www.wheresyoured.at/ has done the math, and it's pretty bleak. His somewhat voluminous rantings contain raw figures on investments, data centre builds, energy availability and depreciation.

He believes Oracle has already signed it's own death warrant, and that Meta is close behind. MS, Amazon and Google have massive revenue streams to sustain them, but looking at the numbers, each has to earn from AI the equivalent of their existing real revenue. I can't see that happening.

And he believes from multiple perspectives of the data that Nvidea are either massively overstating their GPU sales, or that there are warehouses full of unused GPUs. There just isn't the energy capacity to run them all, let alone data centres to put them in.

[nl]

> Ed Zitron

His math is wrong though. He still claims H100s are worthless but in fact they are worth more now than when they were new.

And everything I've read from him is just.. weird? Like he has an anti-AI agenda and he interpreters everything through that?

Look at his latest public piece: https://www.wheresyoured.at/where-are-all-the-data-centers/

He is complaining that there are no 1GW+ data centers, with evidence like this:

> For example, CNBC’s MacKenzie Sigalos reported in October 2025 that Amazon’s Indiana-based (allegedly) 2.2GW Project Rainier data center was “operational,” but only seven out of a planned 30 buildings were actually operational, and her comment of “with two more campuses [of indeterminate capacity] underway.” This comment was buried two videos and 600 words into a piece that declared the data center was “now operational,” with the express intent of making you think the whole thing was operational.

But if you read the report that "buried" comment is far from buried - the whole thing is about how it is still under construction!

Of course 1GW data centers don't all come online at once! You get them online in the parts you can as soon as you can!

[JimDabell]

> Ed Zitron https://www.wheresyoured.at/ has done the math, and it's pretty bleak.

Ed Zitron is constantly wrong and writes like a child having a tantrum, I don’t understand why you take him seriously?

https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/ais-biggest-critic-has-lost...

From a previous comment of mine – the quotes are all from a single article:

He comes across as just a ludicrously unpleasant, spite-filled person.

> I'm fucking tired of having to write this sentence.

> I am so very bored of having this conversation

> I don't care about this number!

> Shut the fuck up!

> This isn't the early days of shit.

> Didn't we just talk about this? Fine, fine.

> $3.25 billion a quarter is absolutely pathetic.

> This isn’t real business! Sorry!

> He said in one of his stupid and boring blogs that

> This man is full of shit! Hey, tech media people reading this — your readers hate this shit! Stop printing it! Stop it!

> It's here where I'm going to choose to scream.

> Dario Amodei — much like Sam Altman — is a liar, a crook, a carnival barker and a charlatan, and the things he promises are equal parts ridiculous and offensive.

> Why are we humoring these oafs?

> Despite Newton's fawning praise

> Nobody talks like this! This isn’t how human beings sound! I don’t like reading it!

> Ewww.

> I'm sorry, I know I sound like a hater, and perhaps I am, but this shit doesn't impress me even a little.

> I know, I know, I'm a hater, I'm a pessimist, a cynic, but I need you to fucking listen to me: everything I am describing is unfathomably dangerous

> expensive, stupid, irksome, quasi-useless new product

> I know this has been a rant-filled newsletter, but I'm so tired of being told to be excited about this warmed-up dogshit.

> I refuse to sit here and pretend that any of this matters.

> I'm tired of the delusion. I'm tired of being forced to take these men seriously.

When I read this kind of thing, it’s very apparent that this is being driven entirely by spite not insight. He’s just so angry about everything. There are 57 exclamation marks in this article!

— https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43085885#43086361

Pay too much attention to this kind of thing and it will poison your mind.

[porksoda]

In the 90s we had people talking like this about The Internet. They're all over on FB now, with a detour in between to say stuff like "my isp can track me!?"