> The reality is that it's not his predictions that matter, but his data, which is almost always correct as of time of writing. If you ignore his opinions, the data presented on liabilities, spend, revenue, loans, commitments, etc across Coreweave, Stargate, Oracle and all of the usual AI companies is, as far as I can tell, correct.

Yeah, I think that he does well with sources and data. I also think that his editorialising can be off-putting for lots of people. I kinda enjoy it, but accept that I have niche tastes.

I don't think anyone believes the major AI providers are running at a profit? They are openly investing heavily into R&D and building out infrastructure, and according to these numbers way more than revenue. It wouldn't make sense for any of these companies to run at a profit right now as they're still aggressively expanding. The question is whether they will break even in the future, and capture a large enough market segment to sustain the business, allowing revenue to outgrow costs. If these numbers are real, revenue is already higher than COGS which is a really good signal for them.

I think the question is more about whether people believe this is a sound business in the long term, which imo isn't possible to tell based on these numbers yet.

> The people who are completely sold on the belief that AI providers are running at a loss they can never recover from believe him to be utterly, totally and completely correct in every one of his predictions.

It's funny, because you can both believe that these entities are bleeding money on every token and also believe that "financial engineering" will bail them out when they IPO despite this fact.

The fundamentals of running a business that sells products or services for more than the cost to produce them seem increasingly decoupled from the financial success of the company and its owners.