Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
59% Positive
Analyzed from 5283 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#company#spacex#xai#musk#more#don#space#hoffman#companies#why
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 5283 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (194 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Quite patronising. Maybe they really do know it a lot better than you, Reid, but not in the way you think. Maybe they see through the hype and hustle culture and are more interested in working towards fulfilling lives and jobs.
I run into them because of their attempts to improve the community. And there are those who do it super quietly, give big, and do everything they can to avoid getting credit for it; there's another Silicon Valley Reed that does this in my community. Steve Jobs apparently did this too, big donations but anonymously.
Do not take the blabbering idiots on the All-In podcast as representative of all of Silicon Valley, the old Valley was far different than those people and there are still plenty of people that pursue wealth not for the purposes of their own self-aggrandizement and power.
I don't think theyre special. Years of being surrounded by yes men and sycophants will probably do that to most people.
One of them in particular was much less toxic and relatable pre-billions.
Reid Hoffman is not a boomer. He was born in 1967. Also: ageism isn't sexy.
Also, Hoffman very intentionally opened the door to talking about generational differences, this kind of feels like the commenter may have touched a nerve
Biology is ageist. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 60s, and not yet subject to a precipitous-decline cut-off, but the median Boomer is about 71 and probably past it [1].
Given every President since 1993—with the exception of Obama—was born in 1942 or 1946 [2], I think it’s fair to admit this whole an-eighty-year-old-is-the-same-as-a-thirty-year-old tripe has swung to an untenable extreme.
Race is a social construct. Age is not. Mixing them up is fundamentally wrong and, I’d argue, dangerous.
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4906299/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...
Typical boomer needing things to be based on sex all the time.
By living like recluses, doom scrolling Tiktok and gambling on Kalshi all day? Lol. They're hardly saints.
There is zero evidence for this time being different. Instead, there is evidence of zombie leverage and corruption coming home to roost while the global growth engine shifts towards China.
Someone like Elon being asked for their opinion on tech - I kind of understand - was at least at the coal face of SpaceX and Tesla for a time, seemed to understand the tech and was not terrible when it came to direction.
Zuck I'd get, Bezos, Dario, Sam - but I don't actually get why Reid is always in the conversation - he's never been in front of anything
The information content of this is rather minimal. Even if everything he says is literally true it's hard to tell through the massive, massive vested interest he has.
And it doesn't help that...
'Hoffman, who is an investor in both Anthropic and OpenAI, pushed back firmly on the narrative that the two companies are in a zero-sum race. “We tend to want to tell these stories as cage matches,” he said, as in two companies enter and only one leaves, but “in fact,” he claimed, “there’s a lot of room for both of them to win incredibly.'
that's clearly a very self-interested gloss on the flip side of the situation. Yes, that's in the possibility space. No, I would not consider "both companies do fantastically for many many years" as a terribly large part of the possibility space. Look to all of the many past instances of industries starting up. It is a very common case that if you take the two early leaders you aren't looking at who is going to be the two biggest companies in 10 or 20 years. It is in fact a common case that neither of those companies are the leaders in 10 or 20 years. The sheer staggering size of the AI training moat at the current time may lock in the possibility that no other business could possibly overtake them... but what if somebody solves that massive training gap? It probably isn't mathematically fundamental; I can't help but observe that humans do not get to their level of capability by pouring the entire Internet through their head several times.
He probably does know a lot of things most of us don't know, but I doubt he's sharing very many of them in this article. This is just trash talk.
Trash talk is Musk's entire M.O., so that seems like a good way to proceed in 2026.
Why not? The guy with probably one of the largest incentives in the world to NOT trash xAI was trashing xAI.
He's just stating the obvious, so I really don't see this as contentious.
xAI is irrelevant. It's so irrelevant that after being relegated hardware from Tesla, then pushed into Twitter to try to make that have value, then pushed into SpaceX because Elon Musk somehow gets away with hilarious levels of securities fraud, now it's basically reduced to renting out hardware.
Yes, xAI is irrelevant, and Hoffman is just pointing out the blatantly obvious. Its only value is in renting out hardware that can be better used by more capable orgs. It is basically a scalper that happened to get loads of nvidia hardware pre-orders in just before the AI run-up, and the entire SPCX scam relies upon everyone trying to buy usage of it.
He is connected and gives money to people - why should that mean anyone should listen to him about any of this. He's not actually a do-er is he?
Is there something I am missing? The amount of coverage he gets seems massively disproportionate to his skill, talent and insight.
Thats why. Not that we should listen to him (no clue who exactly he is) but thats why he gets attention.
this is also known as influence so..
This comment thread is bonkers. I've never seen stuff like this on HN before!
What does this actually mean? I’ve always taken this use of relevance as an influencer metric.
The answer seems to be "we don't, he's on the board of a competiting AI company"
That seems like a good reason to listen to him? He is prominently placed in the field. Has a lot to lose by knowingly making false statements in public about a competitor. And has an incentive (and the resources with which) to dig deeply into them in a way e.g. a trash-talking YouTuber does not.
He has his set of biases. But Board member at a multi-trillion dollar established software and AI kingmaker seems like a weird way to dismiss an opinion.
Remember prepared statements can be written by smarter people. Ask him to speak extemporaneously and find out how stupid he really is.
He's in the Epstein files as an island visitor?
He's a sleazy guy. From Wikipedia (which leans left):
> He funded a group involved in Project Birmingham (a 2017 Alabama Senate race disinformation effort using fake Facebook pages and tactics mimicking Russian interference to hurt Roy Moore). He later apologized, saying he wasn't aware of the specific methods.
He co-founded linkedin a platform every one knows.
Elon Musk invented the Cybertruck and has a weird cult following through Tesla.
i mean Elon Musk called some of his kids this:
X Æ A-Xii Musk, Exa Dark Sideræl Musk and Techno Mechanicus Musk
What opinion should i give more value?
When I was a child my brother taught me to always consider the incentives, especially the monetary ones, of a speaker. 'Follow the money'. So, in this case neither Musk nor Hoffman would get much traction with me as both of them are incentivized to form a pro or con opinion of xAI.
The valuation of SpaceX is due to AI, namely the revenue they get for renting out their GPUs to companies that actually have AI customers, as their own AI tech has not panned out.
For the large number of companies rolled into SpaceX, they are all failed attempts to grow large enough to justify their valuations, and when a company fails to do that it just gets rolled into the conglomerate as a way of hiding the failure.
Tesla's valuation contrasted with its performance means that Tesla will likely be rolled into whatever latest vehicle of Musk's has the most attention, hiding the failure of Tesla to come anywhere near to its promises.
Renting them out for 90 days!
It's never going to be cost effective to send anything back down the gravity well, which means that the only way Musk's plan leads anywhere is if he's able to bootstrap an entirely self contained, self perpetrating economy in space. That's not happening in five years.
Edit: and no, data centres in space are not the answer.
Star Link is the main thing which increased the payload to space significantly.
Star Link only has 10 million customers and every few minutes a satellite handover is happening which makes it hard to use for video call (was my experience at a friend's house)
While this business is paying of right now others will get into it too and destroying SpaceX margin (china etc)
Now what else on payload is there? Ah yes Datacenter.
It would take 300-400 Sparship launches alone to get a current 200-300Mwh DC into space alone.
Starship doesn't deliver yet what it needs to be able to do. Neither on payload side nor on cost reduction due to reuse.
A DC will be cheaper on earth for a long time as long as earth is as empty as it is especially for areas which are just dessert.
It would be a lot better long term investment to just build its own Datacenter city in the dessert as ai doesn't need that low of latency and use everything realtime in the other Datacenter we already have.
SpaceX Elon musk fantasy is 50-100 years to early.
You gonna wait so long?
The 55th slide "key metrics" wording stood out to me:
> AI: "Nameplate Compute Draw" Total number of GPUs installed in the data centers at the end of a period multiplied by the respective all-in power draw, reflecting installed capacity and not actual power consumption or utilization
Close to $15 billion in losses since 2023 and not much clarity on actual usage or impact. TIL the plan of record is AI satellites assembled on the moon.
[0]: https://ir.spacex.com/investors/default.aspx
Hoffmans critique about which businesses have good promise should be taken seriously, if with a grain of salt.
But yeah its clear that xAI is a trainwreck and Space-X is weird cult hype.
Not that I disagree with his assessment…
Communications (i.e. Starlink) 11.3B
Space (i.e. launch services) 4.0B
AI (i.e. Twitter, Grok) 3.2B
According to Google's AI summary, Twitter 2025 revenue was 2.9B, and Grok was 0.5B, so the 2025 "AI" revenue is basically all Twitter, although at least temporarily going forward there will also be significant datacenter/GPU rental income from Anthropic and Google, and now we also have Cursor with an ARR of 4B.
The only significant "AI" revenue here is from Cursor. Datacenter rental seems like it will bring in a lot of money in 2026, but that's hardly "AI".
He thinks it's a daming accusation that SpaceX is "not AI" but in reality "not AI" means rockets and satellite internet.
The parts of the business his class cares about is the garbage, not the substance
Agree that X.ai is a tire fire.
Well, no.
SpaceX it is the 50th or so rocket company. The previous ones did not fail because they couldn't get rockets working or couldn't improve on the state of the art in rocketry. The ones not supported by nation-states failed because they couldn't get the financials working. To be fair some of them failed because they couldn't get to earth orbit. But that's not the common case. More common: "New rocket type works! We demonstrated it succesfully! No launches ... so no money. We're publishing our work and shutting down. Bye". Irritatingly quite a few of these new rocket companies are theoretically more efficient than SpaceX will ever be. Also irritatingly most of these companies, through financial necessity, demonstrated a working rocket in one try, in contrast to SpaceX.
(my favorite? Aerospike nozzles. Aside from their great "Wiley E. Coyote" potential should launch fail they look absolutely incredible)
Did Space part of SpaceX get the financials working? No. Not even with Starlink (their debt repayments still drag it into the negative). What is their fix for too small a market? Make Spaceship, an even bigger rocket ... for a market that sees no use for the existing Falcon 9 launch capacity ...
Starlink: same. It's not even the 10th satellite internet company. The previous ones all failed, because the market was too small, and had to be bailed out by nation states, famously Iridium. Did Starlink solve the financials? No.
The most irritating bit of this is of course Elon Musk himself. Why did he succeed? Well he keeps mentioning himself and "starting from first principles". As illustrated above: he started from first principles, he failed (private, ie. profitable access to earth orbit? SpaceX doesn't do that), then he got incredible amounts of money somewhere to pour down a black hole (using artificial demand like Starlink) and so everything is still moving. Obviously Elon Musk's achievement is 100% finding this money and 0% practicing science from first principles".
That's also Elon Musk's great redeeming quality. What's his achievement? Convincing, first himself, then humanity, or at least enough humans to get ~300 billion in cash, that Space exploration is worth doing despite the fact that it's unprofitable. The actual technical Space exploration side he ... frankly didn't do particularly well, though well enough that it (eventually) worked. But the result is still fantastic: we're in space far more than before!
It’s designed to go to Mars. It boggles the mind that anyone would invest in a company and just ignore and/or disbelieve the reason the company was created. Either they’re just gambling or they’re delusional when they discuss so called fundamentals.
In a sane market neither will generative AI, but that’s what’s propping up this valuation at present.
So you appear to agree with him that the valuation is nonsensical.
Patrick Boyle said it best. Roughly 1 billion people on the planet make more than $12k annually (folks with "discretionary" income). Divide that TAM of $28.5T by 1B and the every single person needs to give SpaceX ~$28.5K every year forever in order for that figure to make sense. It's more than 3x what the planet spends on food currently.
It also seems impossible. What are people seeing that I don’t?
This will continue to work until they run out of morons willing to buy a stock with a PE of 300 at which point it will contract spectacularly.
I rotate between major models frequently. Grok has been up there in accuracy and research for some time, trading places with Gemini IMO. Latest 4.3 release has been solid.
Composer is pretty good and now they own Cursor. Don’t count them out yet.
So.. it’s bad, compared to what? Claude from 2 months ago?
composer 2.5 is actually very good and use it for a good chunk of tasks.
why not?
- Cursor - Lots of data centre capacity being rented to Anthropic and Google and others
That seems very much like being an AI company.
Cursor is obviously an AI company and the main problem Cursor faced was not really having their own model and being forced to buy expensive inference from other providers.
Cursor + their own data centres + the ability to train their own models is pretty big. Definitely an AI company.
Would your requirements also make Atlassian an Ai company? They have data centers and have trained their own model and have Rovo. I certainly do not because it's not their main line of business and their "ai" sucks hard. SpaceX seems to be closer to this category than Anthropic/OpenAI
This isn’t the asymmetry that worries me. Anthropic was penalized, which makes OpenAI (and xAI and every other American company) theoretically subject to the same class of penalties.
DeepSeek is not.
Why listen to these people when they have a clear vested interest in talking nonsense about their competitors?
These comments from investors are predictable and it is obvious why they keep doing this.
I commented 51 mins ago when there were around two comments here that were not talking about Reid's bias against xAI.
5 more comments appeared afterwards in roughly the same timeframe when I posted my reply and that was the first mention of Reid being an OpenAI investor which is enough to explain his obvious bias here.
In this instance, I see it as nothing more than a self-serving and politically motivated diss against Musk, even if the substance of what he says is true.
Sounds like securities fraud to me.
So that you are reminded, as you read about them, that they were one of Epstein "associates". Nothing wrong with that, of course, I'm sure it was only business deals, etc...
Because LinkedIn is also a train wreck and game recognizes game.
To help you understand my mindset here: Picture a simple game or bet. RNG/dice etc. 55% chance for a $10 payout; 45% chance to lose $10. You would keep on rolling that die, right? I believe this is is close enough of a comparison.
Stated another way: Someone else who has no confident predictions about the market and is in index funds or similar, would love to be able to make confident statements about a stock (SPCX or w/e), because it would be an effective edge. They wouldn't just post about it on the internet; they would take appropriate positions.
Reid is a mega-donor for the Dems, Elon for the Repubs.
Billionaires fighting, plebs on HN getting riled up.
Reid Hoffman runs a social network for spam.
Teslas aren't the most high-tech these days. They have fallen behind on the hardware side, particularly in charging and batteries. Here's a charging speed comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy46Ag0djjk
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/18/yann-lecun-elon-musk-xai-fai...
Well, I guess he should know.
Talk about shaking the tree for Musk's temporarily-impoverished billionaire dick-rider groupies, LOL
Ideology is truly blinding.
Tesla: "Not a tech company, but priced like one"