I think the point is, that although at least xAI is monetizing their GPUs/datacenters, they are doing so at a REIT/rental multiplier instead of a frontier lab multiplier.

Clearly, xAI thinks this is the best way for them to extract value out of their assets.

Also, it is clear that Google and Anthropic both think they can extract more value out of those assets than they will pay in rent to SpaceX.

Think two things can be true at once. They should be using their capital to achieve their speculative price. Instead, they are using their capital to achieve a modest ROI, thus invalidating the speculation AND proving they have tech issues in what the speculation is around.

Well, perhaps, but those concerns seem different enough that it seems fairly plausible different people have them. It seems hard to argue the basic point that Grok is not as good as its competition if you spend time using both. That may or may not matter from a business perspective.

> he narrative here is completely polluted by people who dislike Elon/SpaceX.

Hard disagree. It's polluted by Elon in general (pro and con), just like Tesla's idiotic valuation.

But in this case, a pivoted business model fundamentally changes the value proposition, and I'm not clear why "this space company making money on space things is now pretending to be a compute reseller and that's a good thing" is the narrative you think is preferable.

It's also beyond lame to essentially subtweet a "narrative" instead of responding to it directly. Who is "we", aside from a transparently dishonest way to pretend consensus exists?