starkrepresent

AI is the new Climate Change.

Everyone thinks the AI bottleneck is compute. Well...not exactly. From the A100 to the B200, compute scaled 8x. Memory bandwidth scaled 4x. Capacity only 2.4x. The gap between what a chip can calculate & what you can actually feed it is the real wall. A thread on memory:

BREAKING: President Trump says “stocks should go up, not down” after today’s jobs report. “Growth does not mean inflation,” Trump says.

After I review more trial materials, I could have more to say on the Andrew Left verdict; but, I’m clear on the following for now. The jury convicted Andrew of not actually believing the opinions he stated in his Tweets. The evidence consisted of possibly out of context, but impolitic messages, a lack of a paper trail of real research effort, and the infamous closing of positions soon after the Tweets. The root causes of this prosecution are two-fold: the markets are overseen by lawyers who have limited understanding of how markets actually work in the modern era, and that Andrew, alone among activist short sellers, is a trader. Does this change the business for Activist Shorts Sellers? No. The rest of us are researchers first and when you publish multiple pages explaining the bases for your opinions, absent any smoking gun message to the contrary, the basis for showing the opinions are honestly held is evident. That’s why sell-side analyst sycophants will never be indicted for their bullshit Conviction/Strong Buys. They have a paper trail to support their purported opinions. Because Andrew was often operating on pattern recognition, there’s no paper trail. As far as immediate de-risking, that is not illegal. The DOJ and SEC also investigated other activist short sellers, substantially all of whom, MW included, begin de-risking after publication. MW received a SEC No Action Letter. Nobody else has been indicted. There are various reasons for this, but the most powerful IMO is the First Amendment. If you are short XYZ and an Activist publishes on it, that information is almost always core FA-protected speech (companies harming the public interest in some way). To allow you - but not the party exercising its FA rights - to trade - would completely contravene the point of the FA. Even if the DOJ, SEC, and jury doesn’t believe that Andrew always believed everything he Tweeted (despite being directionally correct the vast majority of the time and generating substantial profits for anybody who followed all trades), that should not be manipulation in the modern society / market. I keep thinking that this prosecution is straight out of a time machine from the 1980s. In the modern marketplace of ideas, the old standards do not - and should not - apply. Information has been democratized. It costs nothing to disseminate your opinion. Andrew won a large audience in the marketplace of ideas, which de facto, means that the marketplace places a high value on his statements. He outcompeted literally millions of people who’ve Tweeted on stocks to get there. When he’s competing with millions of people to get his views heard, the courts, SEC, and DOJ are not better arbiters of the truth than the marketplace of ideas. Anybody who reads FinTwit knows that it’s filled with false statements and bad information. Prosecuting the offenders is impossible as a practical matter due to their number. This prosecution effectively bifurcates this completely democratized marketplace of ideas by placing a duty on people whose ideas are already deemed much higher relative value by the marketplace participants. That does not fly under the FA. I have more thoughts & might Tweet them later.