Constructive Disruption | AI Builder

Why does nobody understand that regulating the spread of software has never been achieved in the history of software? Not once, despite aggressive attempts including by the US. Remember the expert bans on advanced encryption in the 80's? punishable by massive jail sentences? Totally failed, when it was much easier to do then than it is now China are max 3-6 months behind. So the software is already exported. They give that capability to the world for free. The only thing constraining the US labs would do is to punish the companies that are trying to do the right thing, drive the industry into chinese models, and still provide no protyection whatsoever. Next hear you say ban chines models? Its open source software, that's impossible, it can be endlessly forked. Dont believe me? You'll notice in this chart, that the best Chinese open source models are currently where Anthropic market leading model was just 2 months ago: See for yourself: artificialanalysis.ai/#artif…

I mean, you cant get more silicon valley than this combo of tweet replies to @jason's post!

Its hand waving, and impossible.

Time for a reality check on Nationalizing Spacex.

Idealogy vs reality:

Ideology vs reality:

The result would be far, far worse. Handy summary:

You might want to check your ideology and look at the reality. The US government would have to buy at all SpaceX shares, costing trillions in cash, half of which would go directly to Elon Musk.

Also, its revenue is looking to have flatlined according to independent trackers. Not good.

Hmmm....what a difference a quarter makes. Its end of October, its all based on Q2, but revenue looks to have FLATLINED in Q3. Be very, very careful.

This should terrify you. Be warned...

Its late October. Care to guess why they are using Q2 The clue is below. Revenue has flatlined. You cant get to $1.5 trillion unless you assume years of sustained revenue growth. This IPO is going to absolutely destroy retail investors, who are going to be left holding the bag providing exit liquidity.

Nice virtue signal, be a shame for reality to bite.

Handy guide for those willing to be guided by ideology vs reality.

Nearly half the cost of any and all these initiatives is launch. SpaceX is the only option. They make 70% margins on launch. Every other provider costs 2-5 times as much. And SpaceX internal costs are 25% of there rates. They have a 10x cost advantage's that nobody has an answer for. Due to that cost, the capacity of non economic state sponsored networks will be miniscule compared to Starlink, and will never offer consumer service. Canada's Telesat for example will spend $1 billion with SpaceX, to build out a capacity equivalent by the early 2030'2, that is the equivalent what SpaceX launches for Starlink every two weeks. That low capacity means Telesat cant even offer serve for consumers. There is no world even if governments want to allocate funds to build something that is 10x more expensive, that they can scale that to support consumers. The numbers are the numbers. No amount of hand waving will change them.