Simon J.K. Pedersen

At some point Anthropic talked to me informally about potentially joining their Board. I wasn’t interested and wouldn’t have been a good fit. But I did send Dario and Daniela a copy of Aristotle’s “Politics.” Unfortunately, I worry they’ve been too busy to read it.

I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and its impossible to have rational conversations about it with them. I can't name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out. I lived through the great MTBF vs MTTR (mean-time-between-failure vs. mean-time-to-recovery) reckoning of infrastructure during the transition to cloud and cloud automation. All those arguments are rearing their ugly heads again but now its... the whole software development industry (maybe the whole world, really). It's frightening, because the psychosis folks operate under an almost absolute "MTTR is all you need" mentality: "its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" We learned in infrastructure that MTTR is great but you can't yeet resilient systems entirely. The main issue is I don't even know how to bring this up to people I know personally, because bringing this topic up leads to immediately dismissals like "no no, it has full test coverage" or "bug reports are going down" or something, which just don't paint the whole picture. We already learned this lesson once in infrastructure: you can automate yourself into a very resilient catastrophe machine. Systems can appear healthy by local metrics while globally becoming incomprehensible. Bug reports can go down while latent risk explodes. Test coverage can rise while semantic understanding falls. Changes happens so fast that nobody notices the underlying architecture decaying. I worry.

No Equality champion will ask for this, simpleton brains just want a flat Billionaire tax, and Billionaires always have a place to move and save money. The only chance for equality in an unequal world is access and a chance to throw the dice in the game.

What the SpaceX–Anthropic Deal Means Two weeks ago, we published a note laying out what GPT-5.5's release implied. The conclusion was simple: whoever secures compute first, in greater volume, and with greater reliability ultimately takes the win. With OpenAI's 30GW roadmap dwarfing Anthropic's 7–8GW, we closed by arguing that the structural advantage on compute sat with OpenAI. Less than a fortnight later, that conclusion is being tested. On May 6, Anthropic signed a single-tenant lease for the entirety of Colossus 1 with SpaceXAI — the infrastructure subsidiary that consolidates Elon Musk's xAI and SpaceX. The asset carries more than 220,000 GPUs and 300MW of power, and crucially, is scheduled to come online within this month. It served as the capstone of Anthropic's April blitz, which added 13.8GW of cumulative capacity over the span of a single month. On headline numbers alone, OpenAI took more than a year to stack 18GW; Anthropic has put 13.8GW in the ground in thirty days. The takeaways break down into three. First, the compute pecking order has been redrawn again. Anthropic has now swept up the AWS expansion (5GW, with $100B+ in spend commitments over a decade), Google + Broadcom (3.5GW of TPU), Google Cloud (5GW alongside a $40B investment), and now SpaceXAI's Colossus 1 (0.3GW). Cumulative committed capacity, inclusive of pre-April allocations, sits at 14.8GW. This is still only half of OpenAI's 2030 target of 30GW, but the fact that the SpaceX lease will be live inside a month makes "deliverability" a qualitatively different proposition. Second, Elon Musk is the plaintiff in an active lawsuit against OpenAI — and at the same time, the supplier handing 220,000+ GPUs and 300MW of power, in one block, to OpenAI's most formidable competitor. The timing matters: the deal was struck in the middle of the Musk–Altman trial. We read this as a deliberate pincer with OpenAI in the middle. In the courtroom, Musk works to dismantle the moral legitimacy of OpenAI's leadership; in the market, he arms Anthropic to absorb OpenAI's revenue and user base. Third, the structure is financial-engineering perfection — a clean win-win for both sides. xAI can recognize $6B of annual revenue from a single contract, an amount that almost precisely offsets its Q1 2026 annualized net loss of $6B. It also accelerates the cleanup of SpaceXAI's pre-IPO balance sheet, with the entity now being floated at around $1.75T. Anthropic, on the other side, converts roughly $5B of spend into what it expects to be $15B of ARR via the coming inference-revenue surge. (Mirae Asset Securities, May 8, 2026)

This is the most OUTRAGEOUS deal I've seen in my 45 years on Wall Street. SpaceX just disclosed Musk's new compensation package: He gets up to 200 million super-voting shares if SpaceX hits a $7.5 trillion valuation, establishes a permanent human settlement of at least ONE MILLION people on Mars, and deploys roughly 100 terawatts of space-based computing power. Let me put the 100 terawatts in perspective: The entire electricity generation capacity of the United States is around 1.2 terawatts. The comp plan asks Musk to build more than 80x America's entire power grid... in orbit. This is a science fiction screenplay that somehow landed in front of the SEC. But here's why it actually matters for your portfolio... The S-1 reportedly claims a $28.5 trillion total addressable market, with over 90 percent attributed to AI. CapeFearAdvisors flagged this one cleanly: when Palantir went public, it disclosed a $119 billion TAM and the SEC reviewed and accepted it. SpaceX is claiming a market roughly 240x BIGGER. Now let's talk about what is actually being sold here: Reported 2025 revenue is approximately $15.5 billion. Starlink delivers around $11 billion of that with healthy margins, and the launch business is genuinely dominant. The problem is xAI - the AI piece doing all the heavy lifting in the trillion-dollar valuation pitch. xAI generated just $210 million of revenue in the first 3 quarters of 2025 while burning through $9.5 billion in cash. Ben Brey and Rupert Mitchell - a former Fidelity portfolio manager and a former head of equity capital markets at Goldman and Citi between them - ran a serious discounted cash flow on the actual operating businesses and arrived at roughly $400 billion. Lawrence Fossi covered their work recently and the math holds up. The IPO is being marketed at $1.75 TRILLION. The gap between what these businesses support and what Musk is asking the public to pay is roughly $1.35 trillion of pure narrative. Then layer on what we just learned last week... The New York Times investigation revealed Musk personally borrowed $500 million from SpaceX between 2018 and 2020 at rates as low as 1%, while bank prime rates sat around 5%. The same SpaceX has been used to bail out SolarCity, prop up Tesla during cash crunches, and absorb xAI when the AI losses became unmanageable. This is the same playbook he's run for two decades. Use a privately controlled entity as a personal piggy bank, and when the bills come due, find new investors to absorb the losses. The IPO is structured to keep that game going FOREVER. The Texas reincorporation strips away Delaware's fiduciary protections. Controlled-company status on the Nasdaq eliminates independent board requirements. And retail is being offered up to 30% of the offering (3x the normal allocation) because the institutions who actually do the math are quietly stepping away. Here is the part that finishes the case for me: Roughly $40 billion of the IPO proceeds are already spoken for before a single dollar reaches operations. About $23 billion retires SpaceX debt. Another $17 billion retires the high-interest debt sitting on xAI and X. This raise is not funding the future. It's just plugging existing holes that retail investors will now own. In my 45 years I've never seen a deal where the comp hurdle is colonizing another planet. I've never seen a disclosed TAM that exceeds verified comparables by two orders of magnitude. I've never seen a company asking the public to fund the retirement of debt incurred by separate private entities controlled by the same individual. Every red flag I've watched precede a major bust over four decades is sitting in this prospectus, in plain sight. The Tesla mispricing is being repeated on a far larger scale. And this time the bag is being handed directly to retail. Don't be the one holding it.