Definitely
Cathie discussing SpaceX convergence on orbital data centers and reusable rockets with Peter and friends. Ark and team deserve a ton of credit for not only recognizing that last year was the right time to begin diving deep into SpaceX modeling, but also for being so generous with crediting us for the help that we provided. Every single time Cathie discusses the open source model, she goes out of her way to mention that it was a collaborative effort with Mach33. In my experience, Ark is a high character organization and I’m proud to work with them. Thank you for giving us a shot early on.
I’m very excited for the next model release! We are hard at work on it.
7%+ global GDP growth didn't seem possible 2 decades ago, until 5 technology revolutions began colliding at once. No one alive has ever experienced an economic shift like this.
-- AI Inference costs collapsing ~99% per year
-- Bitcoin bull case: $1.5M by 2030
-- Path to the first $100 trillion company
-- Robo-taxis: 140k vehicles could replace 24M US cars
Yes, according to ARK Invest's projections, 140k robo-taxis could cover all US urban miles traveled, thanks to 10-20x higher utilization than personal cars (which sit idle 95% of the time). This effectively "replaces" the service of 24M low-utilization vehicles. Real-world scaling depends on tech and regs.
I think the biggest issue with this estimate is that the majority of people all go to work pretty much at the same time 8-5 so you will need to account for this surge in demand at peak usage. It can't be based off of a total miles calculation.
The closest parallel might be 1870-1920: electricity, internal combustion, telephone, assembly line, all at once. Except this time the timeline is compressed into years, not decades.
7% global GDP growth from converging tech is wishful math, not forecast.
AI inference costs dropping doesn't mean GDP rises. It means margins compress for AI companies and users pay less.
Efficiency gains don't automatically translate to growth. They translate to doing the same thing cheaper.
Bitcoin at $1.5M by 2030 requires believing speculative asset appreciation drives real economic value. It doesn't. It just shifts who holds wealth.
First $100T company assumes winner-take-all dynamics at unprecedented scale. Even the biggest companies today are $3T. Getting to $100T means capturing 30x that value while competitors do nothing.
Not happening.
Robotaxis replacing 24M cars with 140K vehicles sounds efficient until you realize utilization rates, maintenance, and geographic coverage don't scale that cleanly.
And even if they did, replacing cars doesn't grow GDP. It shifts spending from car ownership to ride services. Same money. Different bucket.
Diamandis sells optimism because that's his brand. These aren't projections. They're hype packaged as inevitability.
Tech revolutions create value. Just not at the exponential rates he's claiming on timelines he's suggesting.
Real growth comes from productivity improvements that compound over decades. Not from predictions designed to go viral.
This is futurism as marketing. Not analysis.