Twitxy Saved

samuel

Verified account This account is verified. Learn more

@marsrepublica

The Martian Republic within this century.

SpaceX Analyst | Follow for daily SpaceX analysis & updates.
not home until mars Joined July 2026
799 Following 2.7K Followers 1.8K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

samuel Verified account @marsrepublica
Dario’s theory of frontier labs separating from the rest after crossing a certain capability threshold is increasingly becoming clear. It's the same thing Sergey saw. The point of no return is so close. And, to be honest, I don't like how comfortable Elon has become with this reality.

Anthropic clearly demonstrated yesterday that general intelligence can eliminate niche advantages almost overnight. The reason Anthropic seems so unnaturally confident about the future & comfortable with its current compute dependence may be that it genuinely believes that once it achieves AGI–ASI in the near term, none of this will matter. Any competitive advantage can either be bought out through the enormous economic output it generates or replicated almost overnight.

Any IP advantage SpaceX or Tesla has today- say, rocket designs, efficient batteries, satellites, etc. could be surpassed overnight with ASI.

Anthropic already teased this plan yesterday with Fable 5.2, where its models built hardware, controlled robotics better, designed software from scratch, and performed protein folding. Entire fields of specialized expertise and IP could have their value undermined by one sufficiently capable general intelligence.

Sure, you can argue that deploying hardware is very difficult, and it really is. But what happens when owning and operating your own hardware becomes economically inferior to renting it because your ASI competitor can extract more economic value from every watt? We're already seeing the early stages of this.

Even more frightening is what happens once RSI arrives, its model crosses from post-AGI into recursive self-improvement, and reaches the same conclusion: orbital compute is the only way to sustain its improvement loop and expansion, and SpaceX is the only company capable of getting it there.

What happens when its economic case becomes so enormous, potentially generating trillions in revenue, that it wants to acquire the relatively smaller company whose revenue already depends heavily on it?

The same applies to Tesla, where robotics is central to its long-term economic case. What happens when ASI can design better robotics systems than Tesla itself?

And what happens to companies like Nvidia, whose core business is chip design, when manufacturing becomes the only moat?

ASI could use its enormous economic output to take over entire supplier order books, creating dependence on its demand before pushing to acquire massive factories and manufacturing capacity from the same competitors. Those companies might resist, but what can they realistically do when the economic incentives are so overwhelmingly against them?

You can argue that government oversight will prevent this. But does it really? What happens when lobbyists, administrations, and Congress face pressure to concede economically because their states or districts risk losing the resulting economic advantage, or because an administration could be blamed for losing GDP growth and military superiority? What happens when a company generates more revenue than all state tax revenues and IRS collections combined?

Nothing matters when ASI is the question at play. And this isn't some distant theoretical possibility. It's close enough that, once one lab crosses the practical AGI threshold, catching up may become practically impossible.

It's logically reasonable for SpaceX, Tesla, and Elon to consider delaying almost everything else if it means prioritizing every available resource toward achieving RSI and catching up before that happens. Every resource, every advantage, and every available measure should be considered, even taking on substantial additional debt and pulling all the top talent from both companies into this, and aggressively purging through all methods from competitors.

It's do or die.
Elon Musk Verified account @elonmusk 2d
@Dimdv99 @tetsuoai Not as good. Opus 5.5 is a masterpiece.

But Grok 5 should exceed Opus 5.5 and maybe that happens in 2 or 3 months, with continued acceleration thereafter.
View quoted post on X
189 replies 172 reposts 3.1K likes 642K views View on X
samuel Verified account @marsrepublica
Apparently, some people took this as an attack on SpaceX or Elon and a push for Anthropic. Which just outright misses the point and couldn't be any more wrong. This analysis simply emphasized the zero-sum dynamics of the race to ASI, specifically through the lens of SpaceX and Tesla, because I want them to win. The entire point was to argue for unconventional urgency to avoid a potential loss scenario, not to suggest they have lost in any sense.

If anything, this is one of the most pro-SpaceX accounts on this platform. Everything I do here is driven by one objective: trying to contribute to the companies' success by researching potentially valuable ideas and scenarios and producing digestible breakdowns for investors, motivated by the dream of Mars and space exploration.

SpaceX will win. At the very least, that's the reality I'd fight for.
samuel Verified account @marsrepublica 2d
Dario’s theory of frontier labs separating from the rest after crossing a certain capability threshold is increasingly becoming clear. It's the same thing Sergey saw. The point of no return is so close. And, to be honest, I don't like how comfortable Elon has become with this reality.

Anthropic clearly demonstrated yesterday that general intelligence can eliminate niche advantages almost overnight. The reason Anthropic seems so unnaturally confident about the future & comfortable with its current compute dependence may be that it genuinely believes that once it achieves AGI–ASI in the near term, none of this will matter. Any competitive advantage can either be bought out through the enormous economic output it generates or replicated almost overnight.

Any IP advantage SpaceX or Tesla has today- say, rocket designs, efficient batteries, satellites, etc. could be surpassed overnight with ASI.

Anthropic already teased this plan yesterday with Fable 5.2, where its models built hardware, controlled robotics better, designed software from scratch, and performed protein folding. Entire fields of specialized expertise and IP could have their value undermined by one sufficiently capable general intelligence.

Sure, you can argue that deploying hardware is very difficult, and it really is. But what happens when owning and operating your own hardware becomes economically inferior to renting it because your ASI competitor can extract more economic value from every watt? We're already seeing the early stages of this.

Even more frightening is what happens once RSI arrives, its model crosses from post-AGI into recursive self-improvement, and reaches the same conclusion: orbital compute is the only way to sustain its improvement loop and expansion, and SpaceX is the only company capable of getting it there.

What happens when its economic case becomes so enormous, potentially generating trillions in revenue, that it wants to acquire the relatively smaller company whose revenue already depends heavily on it?

The same applies to Tesla, where robotics is central to its long-term economic case. What happens when ASI can design better robotics systems than Tesla itself?

And what happens to companies like Nvidia, whose core business is chip design, when manufacturing becomes the only moat?

ASI could use its enormous economic output to take over entire supplier order books, creating dependence on its demand before pushing to acquire massive factories and manufacturing capacity from the same competitors. Those companies might resist, but what can they realistically do when the economic incentives are so overwhelmingly against them?

You can argue that government oversight will prevent this. But does it really? What happens when lobbyists, administrations, and Congress face pressure to concede economically because their states or districts risk losing the resulting economic advantage, or because an administration could be blamed for losing GDP growth and military superiority? What happens when a company generates more revenue than all state tax revenues and IRS collections combined?

Nothing matters when ASI is the question at play. And this isn't some distant theoretical possibility. It's close enough that, once one lab crosses the practical AGI threshold, catching up may become practically impossible.

It's logically reasonable for SpaceX, Tesla, and Elon to consider delaying almost everything else if it means prioritizing every available resource toward achieving RSI and catching up before that happens. Every resource, every advantage, and every available measure should be considered, even taking on substantial additional debt and pulling all the top talent from both companies into this, and aggressively purging through all methods from competitors.

It's do or die.
View quoted post on X
samuel Verified account @marsrepublica
SpaceX is redesigning Nvidia's AI rack for one simple reason: in orbit, nobody can fix a loose cable.

Nvidia's rack connects 72 GPUs using 5,000 copper cables. On Earth, a technician can replace a faulty cable. In space, where hardware can't be physically serviced, every additional connection becomes another potential failure point.

According to SemiAnalysis, SpaceX's design, called "Kessel," replaces Nvidia's internal NVLink cable assemblies with an 84-layer circuit board called a passive PCB midplane. Compute and switch trays plug into opposite sides, with electrical connections routed through the board itself, eliminating the internal cables that could shake loose, during launch.

The benefits extend to ground data centers too. Nvidia says its own Vera Rubin compute-tray redesign cuts assembly time from roughly two hours to five minutes compared with Blackwell. At SpaceX's targeted 13 GW of compute capacity by 2027, faster assembly could add up massively across tens of thousands of racks.

The challenge is manufacturing the board. Nvidia's larger Kyber design uses a planned 156-layer M9 board. Kessel instead uses an 84-layer M10 board, giving it a more feasible manufacturing path. The trade-off is the need for higher-grade material to maintain signal quality.

But the bigger move is control. SpaceX buys the chips from Nvidia while choosing its own suppliers for everything else. With a factory targeting thousands of AI satellites from late 2027, Kessel could let SpaceX move on its own production timeline rather than wait for Nvidia.
3 replies 3 reposts 48 likes 5.1K views View on X
samuel Verified account @marsrepublica
First of all, this is blatantly false & misleading. No verified Anthropic source says the SpaceX contract won't be extended. The initial non-cancellable periods end in January and March 2027, after which either party can cancel with 90 days' notice, a flexibility SpaceX preferred.

In fact, Anthropic is actually increasing its commitment from $1.25B to approximately $3.1B monthly at full capacity, covering nearly 1 GW of compute. Its latest filing discloses up to $120.5B in aggregate spending on SpaceX across agreements through 2029.

It is reasonable to expect Anthropic to try to convert expensive short-term capacity into longer-term commitments. It has roughly 14.8 GW of committed compute in tranches through the 2030s, according to The Information, with only around 1.7 GW currently live, according to Epoch. Frankly, that's nowhere near the scale of its AI ambitions. Anthropic itself expects model training alone to require 2–5 GW in 2027–2028. It also believes American frontier AI training alone will require 20–25 GW by 2028, with at least 50 GW of total AI electricity capacity needed when inference is included. All by 2028!

Anthropic explicitly acknowledges in its latest filing that it has historically underestimated its compute requirements, operated in a compute-constrained environment where customer demand exceeds available capacity, and intends to secure additional compute beyond its existing commitments.

Simply put, the agentic market will blow current demand projections out of scale. Mass distribution of commoditized, good-enough AI models capable of performing computer-based work at and above human level will transform the economics of everything. Don't take my word for it: Dario himself calls it “a country of geniuses in a data center.”

SpaceX will actually not have enough capacity to serve all its rental customers, even at substantial premiums, while simultaneously serving its own users and pursuing its own RSI.

And let's say for argument's sake, Anthropic secures several additional gigawatts next year to replace the nearly 1 GW it gets from SpaceX; why would it give up capacity rather than secure every gigawatt it can? Why would any company surrender the opportunity to turn every GW into revenue? If Anthropic achieves practical AGI, it could convert that compute into revenue even at low margins. At that level of capability, every additional GW converted into productive output at greater efficiency is a win, provided it isn't operating at a loss. At the very least, it could feed its own recursive self-improvement, which is the priority.

Compute will actually be the core constraint on Anthropic's ability to realize the full scale of its expansion and RSI ambitions at the timescale it envisions. It will fight to secure every GW as quickly as possible to maintain its lead in RSI and compete in a commoditized market. That's why I actually expect it to remain a major customer, and why I've predicted that a substantial portion of SpaceX's planned 13 GW of total capacity by the end of 2027 will go to Anthropic, and that's even if SpaceX provides it.
Jukan Verified account @jukan05 23h
Interesting remarks Anthropic made in a meeting with the sell side:

- Anthropic has the stability and the better talent that open source lacks.

- The AI market is winner take all. As long as we execute properly, we will take all of it.

- The contract with SpaceX will not be extended beyond the middle of next year.

- Developing Opus 5.5 cost more than $10 billion.
View quoted post on X