David Orr Profile picture
Jun 24 6 tweets 2 min read Read on X
The current AI industry stack:

1. Mostly monopoly or oligopoly compute companies, from ASML to NVDA to MU etc.

who mostly sell to,

2. Three serious hyperscalers.

who mostly sell to,

3. Two serious model companies.

who sell to,

4. All sorts of companies, large and tiny.
What seems clear:

1. Is most vulnerable to a boom/bust cycle, since revenue can collapse 80%+. But stands to win the most if compute demand stays strong. If demand doubles from 2029 to 2032, they are still very cheap. If demand maintains 2029 level long term, they are reasonably priced or a bit cheap. If demand collapses, they will collapse.

2. Has good upside if compute demand stays high, low downside given long term contracts. Heads they are worth double+, but don't benefit more than that from an ever increasing demand scenario. Tails they tread water for a few years as they work through over investment.

3. Are an extremely binary bet which comes down to, "Is it AI hardware improvement driving most AI gains, or will rearchers/other going to drive it?" If the former, these are going to be terrible commodity businesses. If the latter, they will become the most valuable companies in the world and it's not close. I think the bullish odds are very low, but if someone disagrees these are a *screaming* long.

4. Seem screwed generally.
Importantly: it's very possible that there's both:

1. Gets hit badly in a boom/bust cycle

and

3. Researchers end up driving the big improvement in AI, in which case they'd actually beneift from the boom/bust cycle, as the game would likely be winner takes all. We can already see this where the very best model has huge pricing power ... I just don't think this is durable at all for lots of reasons.Image
I guess also: 3 could actually cause 1.

If one frontier company starts getting really far ahead, and it is self improving that way, everyone else gives up. Now this frontier company sets the terms for everyone else in the stack, and prices crater big time.
The super cyberpunk future is 3 wins and their spin offs wind up becoming all the most valuable companies. But yeah, it just seems far fetched.

Say that Anthropic pulls ahead big time in the next 6-12 months though... I'll start changing my mind and get long even if the stock is already $3 trillion market cap or whatever.

Thus far, all evidence points to these being awful commodities though IMO.
Hardware demand will eventually collapse if model companies wind up being a crappy competitive business.

Hardware companies will also eventually collapse if model companies wind up being a hardcore monopoly or duopoly because they are self improving.

So what is the bull outcome for hardware? A moderate outcome, I suppose, where models end up competing in smaller niches longer term.

Maybe each path isn't *that* narrow...?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Orr

David Orr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @orrdavid

Jun 23
$AMZN $MSFT and $GOOG are just expanding their existing cloud business/capabilities. It's a long term oligopoly that I doubt anyone can compete with. I was worried about competition 7 years ago, but the sheer scale of these operations today makes that seem near impossible.

$META is randomly joining because Zuck has no other real way to expand the biz (hence the old metaverse catastrophe).

The rest are a big question mark. And China never seems like a real threat, because a business would have to be insane to rely on Chinese systems which have lots of extra risk.Image
Three companies buy huge volumes from semiconductor companies. These three simultaneously lock into a few year contracts to sell that compute. Given those contracts, the compute business just isn't that risky even in a bust scenario. Maybe they lose a year or two of earnings.

The (software) companies signing up for contracts to buy this compute are taking a bigger risk, and they are essentially forced into that decision. That's why they have been exceptionally weak today. Their old business went from wider moat capital light to weak moat capital intensive... and lots of them are just going to be commoditized.

And of course AI hardware companies make a ton of money until the bust happens. But that bust will be spectacular... and seems quite likely short to medium term.
My view on AI keeps evolving.

Some existing businesses are AI winners (like YouTube) and some are AI losers (like bank website software).

The really wonderful businesses that will come from AI: humans using AI to develop in house technology stacks, so unique in house data that nobody else can use, things like patents on age reversal technology. IE the people leveraging AI opportunistically, leveraging this new tech advance in a thoughtful way.

Terrible businesses will be frontier models, most white collar jobs.

AI hardware still seems like a great business long term, I just think the current earnings wave is a one off win, not a permanently new high level.
Read 9 tweets
Jun 23
I'm glad $GOOG isn't trying to be the most advanced frontier model company, which eems like a fool's bet. A cash incinerator. $GOOG clearly has the resources to do it, but just don't seem to be.

It's better to be a company:

* With a scale advantage running hardware, which there are really just three of.

* Already have wide moat businesses that benefit from AI. For example, this new youtube mode that automatically shrinks videos based on what matters and doesn't. A better user experience and packs in more ads.

* TPUs, which were specifically designed to run AI efficiently years ago so they're not just playing catch up. It's very possible that $GOOG will have the best AI simply because these have the most power in the end.
If I'm right about both of these (and maybe not):

1. AI improvement will depend mostly on hardware advances.

and

2. There will be a boom/bust cycle in hardware, causing hardware to be vastly oversupplied.

Hyperscalers should be the winner. They'll take a brief one time hit as the latest wave of hardware they ordered is oversupplied. But from there, they can stop orders (causing AI hardware companies to collapse) and demand will catch up within a few years so it won't even be that big a loss. And meanwhile, their physical world scale advantage will continue long term... it seems so hard for anyone to catch up in that game in a real way.
I also really like the way $GOOG structured this. They have customers locked into longer term contracts, so they don't even take much of the hit when the bust happens. It's the companies renting the compute from them that take an extreme risk. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 21
This thread discusses my long investments sorted by bucket. I'll often skip tiny positions out of laziness.

AI hardware comapnies:

$TSM $GOOG (partial) $AMZN (partial) $4966 $5393 $6920 $8053 (partial) $6490

AI hardware companies has been an easy theme to ride for the last 3 years.

Headline valuations aren't *totally* crazy. For example $TSM trades for 40x. These companies are growing so fast and biz quality is so high that those valuations could really be fundamentally justified, which is the main reason I remain long.

Another reason to stay long: if a dotcom comparison is right - and that seems kind of obvious at this point - we should expect far crazier valuations at the peak of the bubble. Based purely on multiple expansion, we could see 100% upside. I'm not big on investing this way. I almost never think this way. But this one seems pretty damn straightfoward and there's a time and a place for it.
Japanese conglomerates:

$9435 $9042 $8053 (mostly) $8058 $8078 (partial) $8001 $8472 (partial) $2768

They are just good capital allocators, good businesses trading for good valuations. Hikari I've been pounding the table on and is the outlier large position of the group since it seems both best and cheapest.
Commodities:

$GMEXICOB $TX $8053 (partial) $8078 (partial)

The outlier big bet here is $GMEXICOB which I've not talked about yet. They own 89% of $SCCO, which are huge copper mines in an ideal location, the Americas. US listed $SCCO's market cap is $161 billion. Mexico listed $GMEXICOB's market cap is $94 billion, plus they own some small other actually good stuff. Do the math and you're buying $SCCO for around a 35% discount, or with the other good assets maybe a 45% discount.

$SCCO is maybe a little overvalued, maybe not. It had already caught my eye as a, "maybe that seems interesting play" when looking through global copper plays. It just seems a little richly valued, though maybe jsutified because I'm so bullish on copper. And then I found $GMEXICOB which I've never seen anyone else talk about before ... even though it's the largest stock in Mexico.
Read 16 tweets
Jun 20
Nobody actually knows what's going on with Iran, what the real deal was, who is even in control of Iran today, etc.

All I know is the price of oil this whole time hasn't lined up with the narrative that Iran successfully applied max pressure via the SoH on oil prices.
Maybe the USA capitulated to Iran, sure. I'll even assign that a solid 35% odds.

Maybe we already, quietly got a very favorable outcome after we killed 50% of their senior leadership.

Maybe Iran capitulated to us, and the deal is face saving nonsense.

Nobody knows.
The short dated price of oil in the gulf itself mysteriously collapsed mid-March. Rather than there being an extreme problem like everyone thought back then. Why did that happen? And why did oil do not much after that, even with SoH supposedly blockaded for months?
Read 10 tweets
Jun 19
The amount of time an AI can spend on a task: Image
6 weeks of programming 24/7, probably with more capability than a human.

Knowledge jobs are totally cooked.
Even if, say, law and accounting catch up to software on compute spend - which probably not anywhere close - I still see a boom/bust cycle here.

There is a lot of old work that is going to be replaced.

It will take a long time to figure out the new work to create with AI.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 18
I'm very bullish on AI over 20 years.

But now I'm confident that AI is most likely going to be a boom/bust cycle in the shorter term. Probably within a few years. The issue:

1. Most AI end user spend is just on coding. **Coding is where the money is actually coming from to pay for today's extreme capex**.

2. Compute costs will keep dropping a lot because hardware keeps improving rapidly. Even if the volume of capex doesn't keep going up (and it is today), the cost of software development will keep going down as the hardware gets better. Software developement isn't that hard a problem and it's easy to how **AI is going to drive development costs very low long term**.

3. **Back in 2020, it made sense for software companies to continuously improve their products because the cost of developing software was going to be roughly flat long term**. Thus, money invested into development was a moat because it would cost a competitor way too much to ever catch up. The bet was that each niche piece of software would be winner takes all and it would never make sense for anyone to catch up.

4. But now because of 2, 3 is no longer the case. If you assume software will cost 99% less to develop in 10 years (I do), software's moat sucks. You keep investing into something, where the future cost of that thing is going to be lower.

At some point the market will realize all of this. And then software companies will stop making this poor investment. And then AI capex will overshoot almost for sure vs the short term demand. And then AI companies are going to drop hard / we have a bear market.

Longer term, I expect companies to spend big on compute on things besides software. But this dominating variable is key today.

3 years ago I wrote that $NVDA would become the most valuable company in the world on the back of AI. Today, I'm nearly as confidently calling a short term boom/bust cycle, unless companies quickly find something else to spend huge on AI.
This post is *not* meant to be a short term call by the way. I have no clue short term. There's even a good chance the market will come up with a short term narrative for how AI is in fact good for software companies due to cost savings, even though it's really terrible.
Another thought: $MSFT is likely going to face at least a solid duopoly in desktop operating systems, which means their profits from Windows are likely to drop 75%+. And if it's an oligopoly, 90%+.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(