Connect with us

Published

on

Samuel Bankman-Fried’s poster in downtown San Francisco.

MacKenzie Sigalos | CNBC

The Kimchi Swap put Sam Bankman-Fried on the map.

The year was 2017, and the ex-Jane Street Capital quant trader noticed something funny when he looked at the page on CoinMarketCap.com listing the price of bitcoin on exchanges around the world. Today, that price is pretty much uniform across the exchanges, but back then, Bankman-Fried previously told CNBC, he would sometimes see a 60% difference in the value of the coin. His immediate instinct, he said, was to get in on the arbitrage trade — buying bitcoin on one exchange, selling it back on another exchange, and then earning a profit equivalent to the price spread.

“That’s the lowest hanging fruit,” Bankman-Fried said in September.

The arbitrage opportunity was especially compelling in South Korea, where the exchange-listed price of bitcoin was significantly more than in other countries. It was dubbed the Kimchi Premium — a reference to the traditional Korean side dish of salted and fermented cabbage.

FTX's Sam Bankman Fried to NYT: I would have been more thorough if I had concentrated better

After a month of personally dabbling in the market, Bankman-Fried launched his own trading house, Alameda Research — named after his hometown of Alameda, California, near San Francisco — to scale the opportunity and work on it full-time. Bankman-Fried said in an interview in September that the firm sometimes made as much as a million dollars a day.

Part of why SBF, as he’s also called, earned street cred for carrying out a relatively straightforward trading strategy had to do with the fact that it wasn’t the easiest thing to execute on crypto rails five years ago. Bitcoin arbitrage involved setting up connections to each one of the trading platforms, as well as building out other complicated infrastructure to abstract away a lot of the operational aspects of making the trade. Bankman-Fried’s Alameda became very good at that, and the money rolled in.

From there, the SBF empire ballooned.

Alameda’s success spurred the launch of crypto exchange FTX in the spring of 2019. FTX’s success begat a $2 billion venture fund that seeded other crypto firms. Bankman-Fried’s personal wealth grew to over $16 billion at its peak in March.

Bankman-Fried was suddenly the poster boy for crypto everywhere, and the FTX logo adorned everything from Formula 1 race cars to a Miami basketball arena. The 30-year-old went on an endless press tour, bragged about having a balance sheet that could one day buy Goldman Sachs, and became a fixture in Washington, where he was one of the Democratic Party’s top donors, promising to sink $1 billion into U.S. political races before later backtracking.

It was all a mirage.

As crypto prices tanked this year, Bankman-Fried bragged that he and his enterprise were immune. But in fact, the sectorwide wipeout hit his operation quite hard. Alameda borrowed money to invest in failing digital asset firms this spring and summer to keep the industry afloat, then reportedly siphoned off FTX customers’ deposits to stave off margin calls and meet immediate debt obligations. A Twitter fight with the CEO of rival exchange Binance pulled the mask off the scheme.

Alameda, FTX and a host of subsidiaries Bankman-Fried founded have filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware. He’s stepped down from his leadership roles and lost 94% of his personal wealth in a single day. It is unclear exactly where he is now, as his $40 million Bahamas penthouse is reportedly up for sale. The photos of his face plastered across FTX advertisements throughout downtown San Francisco serve as an unwelcome reminder of his rotting empire.

It was a steep fall from hero to villain. But there were a lot of signs.

Bankman-Fried told CNBC in September that one of his fundamental principles when it comes to playing the markets is working with incomplete information.

“When you can sort of start to quantify and map out what’s going on, but you know there are a lot of things you don’t know,” he said. “You know you’re being approximate, but you have to try to figure out what trade to do anyway.”

The following account is based on reporting from CNBC, Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. Piecing together information from various news sources paints a picture of an investor who over-extended himself, frantically moved to cover his mistakes with questionable and perhaps illegal tactics, and surrounded himself with a tight cabal of advisors who could not or would not curb his worst impulses.

What went wrong in the last year

The risk of an FTX crypto contagion

The big problem was that everyone was borrowing from one another, which only works when the price of all those crypto coins keeps going up. By June, bitcoin and ether had both tumbled by more than half for the year.

“Leverage is the source of every implosion in financial institutions, both traditional and crypto,” said Hart Lambur, a former Goldman Sachs government bond trader who provided liquidity in U.S. Treasuries for central banks, money managers and hedge funds.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Long-Term Capital, Three Arrows Capital and now FTX all blew up due to bad leverage that got sniffed out and exploited by the market,” said Lambur, who now works in decentralized finance.

As the dominoes fell, Bankman-Fried jumped into the mix in June to try to bail out some of the failing crypto firms before it was too late, extending hundreds of millions of dollars in financing. In some cases, he made moves to try to buy these companies at fire-sale prices.

Amid the wave of bankruptcies, some of Alameda’s lenders asked for their money back. But Alameda didn’t have it, because it was no longer liquid. Bankman-Fried’s trading firm had parked the borrowed money in venture investments, a decision that was “probably not really worth it,” he told the Times in an interview Sunday.

To meet its debt obligations, FTX borrowed from customer deposits in FTX to quietly bail out Alameda, the Journal and the Times reported. The borrowing was in the billions. Bankman-Fried admitted the move in his interview with the Times, saying that Alameda had a large “margin position” on FTX, but he declined to disclose the exact amount.

“It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” Bankman-Fried told the Times. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.”

Reuters and the Journal both reported that the lifeline was around $10 billion, and Reuters reports that $1 billion to $2 billion of that emergency financing is now missing. Tapping customer funds without permission was a violation of FTX’s own terms and conditions. On Wall Street, it would be a clear violation of U.S. securities laws.

The two firms — one of the world’s biggest crypto brokers and one of the world’s biggest crypto buyers — were supposed to be separated by a firewall. But they were, in fact, quite cozy, at one point extending to a romantic relationship between Bankman-Fried and Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, he acknowledged to the Times.

“FTX and Alameda had an extremely problematic relationship,” Castle Island Venture’s Nic Carter told CNBC. “Bankman-Fried operated both an exchange and a prop shop, which is super unorthodox and just not really allowed in actually regulated capital markets.”

The borrowing and lending scheme between the two firms was more convoluted than just using customer funds to make up for bad trading bets. FTX tried to paper over the hole by denoting assets in two crypto tokens that were essentially made up — FTT, a token created by FTX, and Serum, which was a token created and promoted by FTX and Alameda, according to financial filings reported by Bloomberg’s Matt Levine.

Firms make up crypto tokens all the time — indeed, it’s a big part of how the crypto boom of the last two years was financed — and they usually offer some sort of benefit to users, although their real value to most traders is simple speculation, that is, the hope that the price will rise. Owners of FTT were promised lower trading costs on FTX and the ability to earn interest and rewards, such as waived blockchain fees. While investors can profit when FTT and other coins increase in value, they’re largely unregulated and are particularly susceptible to market downturns.

These tokens were essentially proxies for what people believed Bankman-Fried’s exchange to be worth, since it controlled the vast majority of them. Investor confidence in FTX was reflected in the price of FTT.

The key point here is that FTX was reportedly siphoning off customer assets as collateral for loans, and then covering it with a token it made up and printed at will, drip-feeding only a fraction of its supply into the open market. The financial acrobatics between the two firms somewhat resembles the moves that sank energy firm Enron almost two decades ago — in that case, Enron essentially hid losses by transferring underperforming assets to off-balance sheet subsidiaries, then created complicated financial instruments to obscure the moves.

As all this was happening, Bankman-Fried continued his press tour, lionized as one of the great young tech entrepreneurs of the age. It only began to unravel once Bankman-Fried got into a public spat with Binance, a rival exchange.

Binance, Crypto.com CEOs race to reassure customers funds are safe

What went wrong in the last two weeks

The relationship between Binance and Bankman-Fried goes back almost to the beginning of his time in the industry. In 2019, Binance announced a strategic investment in FTX and said that as part of the deal it had taken “a long-term position in the FTX Token (FTT) to help enable sustainable growth of the FTX ecosystem.”

Flash forward a couple years to the summer of 2022. Bankman-Fried was pressing regulators to look into Binance and criticizing the exchange in public. It’s unclear exactly why — it could have been based on legitimate suspicions. Or it may simply have been because Binance was a major competitor to FTX, both as an exchange and as a potential buyer of other distressed crypto companies.

Whatever the reason, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, known as CZ, soon saw his chance to strike.

On Nov. 2, CoinDesk reported a leaked balance sheet showing that a significant amount of Alameda’s assets were held in FTX’s illiquid FTT token. It raised questions about both the trading firm’s solvency and FTX’s financials.

Zhao took to Twitter on Nov. 6, saying that Binance had about $2.1 billion worth of FTT and BUSD, its own stablecoin.

Then he dropped the bomb:

“Due to recent revelations that have came to light, we have decided to liquidate any remaining FTT on our books,” he said.

Investors raced to pull money out of FTX. On Nov. 6, according to Bankman-Fried, the exchange had roughly $5 billion of withdrawals, “the largest by a huge margin.” On an average day, net inflows had been in the tens of millions of dollars.

The speed of the withdrawals underscores how the largely unregulated crypto market is often operating in an information vacuum, meaning that traders react fast when new facts come to light.

“Crypto players are reacting quicker to news and rumor, which in turn builds up a liquidity crisis much faster than one would have seen in traditional finance,” said Fabian Astic, head of decentralized finance and digital assets for Moody’s Investors Service. 

“The opacity of the market operations often leads to panic reactions that, in turn, spark a liquidity crunch. The developments with Celsius, Three Arrows, Voyager, and FTX show how easy it is for crypto investors to lose confidence, prompting them to withdraw large sums and causing a near-death crisis for these firms,” Astic said.

As the FTT token plunged in value in tandem with the mass withdrawals, Bankman-Fried quietly sought investors to cover the multibillion-dollar hole from the money that had been withdrawn by Alameda. That value may have been as high as $10 billion, according to multiple reports. They all declined, and in a move of desperation, SBF turned to CZ.

In a public tweet on Nov. 8, Zhao said Binance agreed to buy the company, though the deal had a key term: nonbinding. The sudden public revelation that FTX was in need of a bailout caused FTT’s value to plunge off a cliff.

The next day, Zhao claimed he did due diligence and didn’t like what he saw, essentially sealing FTX’s demise. Bankman-Fried speculated to the Times that Zhao never intended to buy it in the first place.

On Friday, Nov. 11, FTX and Alameda both filed for bankruptcy. FTX, which was valued at $32 billion in a financing round earlier this year, has frozen trading and customer assets and is seeking to discharge its creditors in bankruptcy court. Bankman-Fried is no longer the boss at either firm.

A new bankruptcy filing posted Tuesday shows that FTX may have more than 1 million creditors. It plans to file a list of the 50 largest ones this week.

Lawyers for the exchange wrote that FTX has been in contact with “dozens” of regulators in the U.S. and overseas in the last 72 hours, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The SEC and Department of Justice are reportedly investigating FTX for civil and criminal violations of securities laws. Financial regulators in the Bahamas are also reportedly looking at the possibility of criminal misconduct.

CEO of FTX Sam Bankman-Fried testifies during a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee at Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 8, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

Binance is now poised to claim absolute dominance over the industry.

“Binance clearly comes out stronger from all of this,” said William Quigley, co-founder of the U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoin tether. “CZ claims Binance has no debt, and doesn’t use its BNB token as collateral. Both of those are good practices in the highly volatile crypto markets.”

Quigley added that more institutional trading and custody will likely shift to Binance.

“The cryptocurrency industry’s entire ethos is founded on disintermediation and decentralization, so Binance’s ever-growing dominance raises reasonable fears over how further centralization will affect the average trader,” said Clara Medalie, director of research at data firm Kaiko.

“FTX’s collapse benefits no one, not even Binance, which will now face growing questions over its monopoly of market activity,” Medalie told CNBC, speculating that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of market participants affected by the fall of FTX and Alameda.

“Each entity has numerous twisted and over-lapping financial ties to projects throughout the industry that now stand to lose support or go under themselves,” she said.

In the meantime, though, Binance took a bath on the collapse of the FTT token, which Zhao said the firm held after Bankman-Fried asked for a bailout.

“Full disclosure,” Zhao tweeted Sunday.

“Binance never shorted FTT. We still have a bag of as we stopped selling FTT after SBF called me. Very expensive call.”

— CNBC’s Ari Levy, Kate Rooney and Ryan Browne contributed to this report.

Sam Bankman-Fried faces possible bankruptcy after failed FTX deal

Continue Reading

Technology

Harris agrees to potential CNN debate with Trump on Oct. 23

Published

on

By

Harris agrees to potential CNN debate with Trump on Oct. 23

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, speaks at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre in Atlanta on Sept. 20, 2024. Harris spoke about abortion and reproductive rights in Georgia as she continues to campaign against Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Vice President Kamala Harris said on Saturday that she would be open to debating former President Donald Trump for a second time in October, ahead of the November U.S. presidential election.

Jen O’Malley Dillon, chair of Harris and vice presidential nominee Tim Walz’s campaign, said in a statement that Harris has accepted CNN’s invitation to a debate on Oct. 23. That would be less than two weeks before the election.

“I will gladly accept a second presidential debate on October 23. I hope @realDonaldTrump will join me,” Harris wrote in an X post.

It isn’t the first time the Harris camp has proposed another match. Shortly after Harris and Trump held a debate hosted by ABC News earlier this month, O’Malley Dillon said Harris was ready for round two against him. But as Harris was raising millions of dollars following the campaign, Trump declined to face her again.

In a post on the Trump Media & Technology Group’s social network, Truth Social, the Republican presidential nominee said there would be “no third debate.”

On Saturday, a Trump campaign spokesperson referred CNBC back to Trump’s Truth Social post about there being no third debate.

“She’s done one debate,” Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, on Saturday. “I’ve done two. It’s too late to do another. I’d love to, in many ways, but it’s too late. The voting is cast.”

The first 2024 debate for Trump was against the current president, Joe Biden. CNN ran the event in June. But Biden struggled on the debate stage. Democratic donors expressed concerns about Biden’s prospects, and Democratic members of Congress called on Biden to end his election bid. In August, Harris accepted the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

“Donald Trump should have no problem agreeing to this debate,” O’Malley Dillon wrote in her statement. “It is the same format and setup as the CNN debate he attended and said he won in June, when he praised CNN’s moderators, rules and ratings.”

— CNBC’s Rebecca Picciotto contributed to this report.

WATCH: Harris won the debate but didn’t move the needle on voter decisions, says Pimco’s Libby Cantrill

Harris won the debate but didn't move the needle on voter decisions, says Pimco's Libby Cantrill

Continue Reading

Technology

Intel’s wild week leaves Wall Street more uncertain than ever about chipmaker’s future

Published

on

By

Intel's wild week leaves Wall Street more uncertain than ever about chipmaker's future

Intel CEO Patrick Gelsinger speaks at the Intel Ocotillo Campus in Chandler, Arizona, on March 20, 2024. 

Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images

It was quite a week for Intel.

The chipmaker, which has lost over half its value this year and last month had its worst day on the market in 50 years after a disappointing earnings report, started the week on Monday by announcing that it’s separating its manufacturing division from the core business of designing and selling computer processors.

And late Friday, CNBC confirmed that Qualcomm has recently approached Intel about a takeover in what would be one of the biggest tech deals ever. It’s not clear if Intel has engaged in conversations with Qualcomm, and representatives from both companies declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the matter.

The stock rose 11% for the week, its best performance since November.

The rally provides little relief to CEO Pat Gelsinger, who has had a tough run since taking the helm in 2021. The 56-year-old company lost its long-held title of world’s biggest chipmaker and has gotten trounced in artificial intelligence chips by Nvidia, which is now valued at almost $3 trillion, or more than 30 times Intel’s market cap of just over $90 billion. Intel said in August that it’s cutting 15,000 jobs, or more than 15% of its workforce.

But Gelsinger is still calling the shots and, for now, he says Intel is pushing forward as an independent company with no plans to spin off the foundry. In a memo to employees on Monday, he said the two halves are “better together,” though the company is setting up a separate internal unit for the foundry, with its own board of directors and governance structure and the potential to raise outside capital.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger speaks while showing silicon wafers during an event called AI Everywhere in New York, Thursday, Dec. 14, 2023.

Seth Wenig | AP

For the company that put the silicon in Silicon Valley, the road to revival isn’t getting any smoother. By forging ahead as one company, Intel has to two clear two gigantic hurdles at once: Spend more than $100 billion through 2029 to build chip factories in four different states, while simultaneously gaining a foothold in the AI boom that’s defining the future of technology.

Intel expects to spend roughly $25 billion this year and $21.5 billion next year on its foundries in hopes that becoming a domestic manufacturer will convince U.S. chipmakers to onshore their production rather than relying on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Samsung.

That prospect would be more palatable to Wall Street if Intel’s core business was at the top of its game. But while Intel still makes the majority of processors at the heart of PCs, laptops, and servers, it’s losing market share to Advanced Micro Devices and reporting revenue declines that threaten its cash flow.

‘Next phase of this foundry journey’

With challenges mounting, the board met last weekend to discuss the company’s strategy.

Monday’s announcement on the new governance structure for the foundry business served as an opening salvo meant to convince investor that serious changes are underway as the company prepares to launch its manufacturing process, called 18A, next year. Intel said it has seven products in development and that it landed a giant customer, announcing that Amazon would use its foundry to produce a networking chip.

“It was very important to say we’re moving to the next phase of this foundry journey,” Gelsinger told CNBC’s Jon Fortt in an interview. “As we move to this next phase, it’s much more about building efficiency into that and making sure that we have good shareholder return for those significant investments.”

Still, Gelsinger’s foundry bet will take years to pay off. Intel said in the memo that it didn’t expect meaningful sales from external customers until 2027. And the company will also pause its fabrication efforts in Poland and Germany “by approximately two years based on anticipated market demand,” while pulling back on its plans for its Malaysian factory. 

TSMC is the giant in the chip fab world, manufacturing for companies including Nvidia, Apple and Qualcomm. Its technology allows fabless companies — those that outsource manufacturing — to make more powerful and efficient chips than what’s currently possible at volume inside Intel’s factories. Even Intel uses TSMC for some of its high-end PC processors.

Intel hasn’t announced a significant traditional American semiconductor customer for its foundry, but Gelsinger said to stay tuned.

“Some customers are reluctant to give their names because of the competitive dynamics,” Gelsinger told Fortt. “But we’ve seen a large uptick in the amount of customer pipeline activity we have underway.”

Prior to the Amazon announcement, Microsoft said earlier this year it would use Intel Foundry to produce custom chips for its cloud services, an agreement that could be worth $15 billion to Intel. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said in February that it would use Intel to produce a chip, but didn’t provide details. Intel has also signed up MediaTek, which primarily makes lower-end chips for mobile phones.

U.S. President Joe Biden listens to Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger as he attends the groundbreaking of the new Intel semiconductor manufacturing facility in New Albany, Ohio, U.S., September 9, 2022.

Joshua Roberts | Reuters

Backed by the government

Intel’s biggest champion at the moment is the U.S. government, whish is pushing hard to secure U.S.-based chip supply and limit the country’s reliance on Taiwan.

Intel said this week that it received $3 billion to build chips for the military and intelligence agencies in a specialized facility called a “secure enclave.” The program is classified, so Intel didn’t share specifics. Gelsinger also recently met with Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who is loudly promoting Intel’s future role in chip production.

Earlier this year, Intel was awarded up to $8.5 billion in CHIPS Act funding from the Biden administration and could receive an additional $11 billion in loans from the legislation, which was passed in 2022. None of the funds have been distributed yet. 

“At the end of the day, I think what policymakers want is for there to be a thriving American semiconductor industry in America,” said Anthony Rapa, a partner at law firm Blank Rome who focuses on international trade.

For now, Intel’s biggest foundry customer is itself. The company started reporting the division’s finances this year. For the latest quarter, which ended in June, it had an operating loss of $2.8 billion on revenue of $4.3 billion. Only $77 million in revenue came from external customers.

Intel has a goal of $15 billion in external foundry revenue by 2030.

While this week’s announcement was viewed by some analysts as the first step to a sale or spinoff, Gelsinger said that it was partially intended to help win new customers that may be concerned about their intellectual property leaking out of the foundry and into Intel’s other business.

“Intel believes that this will provide external foundry customers/suppliers with clearer separation,” JPMorgan Chase analysts, who have the equivalent of a sell rating on the stock, wrote in a report. “We believe this could ultimately lead to a spin out of the business over the next few years.”

No matter what happens on that side of the house, Intel has to find a fix for its main business of Core PC chips and Xeon server chips.

Intel’s client computing group — the PC chip division — reported about a 25% drop in revenue from its peak in 2020 to last year. The data center division is down 40% over that stretch. Server chip volume decreased 37% in 2023, while the cost to produce a server product rose.

Intel has added AI bits to its processors as part of a push for new PC sales. But it still lacks a strong AI chip competitor to Nvidia’s GPUs, which are dominating the data center market. The Futurum Group’s Daniel Newman estimates that Intel’s Gaudi 3 AI accelerator only contributed about $500 million to the company’s sales over the last year, compared with Nvidia’s $47.5 billion in data center sales in its latest fiscal year.

Newman is asking the same question as many Intel investors about where the company goes from here.

“If you pull these two things apart, you go, ‘Well, what are they best at anymore? Do they have the best process? Do they have the best design?'” he said. “I think part of what made them strong was that they did it all.”

— CNBC’s Rohan Goswami contributed to this report

WATCH: CNBC’s full interview with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger

Watch CNBC's full interview with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk hopes his new supercomputers will boost his businesses

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk hopes his new supercomputers will boost his businesses

Elon Musk is on a mission to build new supercomputers. As the CEO of Tesla and his new artificial intelligence startup xAI, the tech titan has big plans for how artificial intelligence can help to supercharge his businesses.

In January, he wrote on X that Tesla should be viewed as an AI/robotics company rather than a car company. Tesla’s custom-built supercomputer named Dojo is key to this transformation. Tesla has said it plans to spend $500 million to build the supercomputer in Buffalo, New York. Tesla is also building another supercomputer cluster, called Cortex, at the company’s headquarters in Austin, Texas.

Dojo will process and train AI models using the large amounts of video and data captured by Tesla cars. The goal is to improve Tesla’s suite of driver assistance features, which the company calls Autopilot, and its more robust Full Self-Driving or FSD system. Subscriptions to Tesla’s FSD features cost $99 a month and include automatic lane changes, automatic parking and automatic stopping for traffic lights and stop signs.

“They’ve sold what is it, 5 million plus cars. Each one of those cars typically has eight cameras plus in it. And if you think then that those cars are driving around, let’s just say 10,000 miles a year on average, they’re streaming all of that video back to Tesla,” says Steven Dickens, chief technology advisor at the Futurum Group. “So what can they do with that training set? Obviously they can develop Full Self-Driving and they’re getting close to that.”

Despite their names, neither Autopilot nor FSD make Tesla vehicles autonomous and require active driver supervision, as Tesla states on its website. In the past, the company has garnered scrutiny from regulators who say that Tesla falsely advertised the capabilities of its Autopilot and FSD systems. But reaching full autonomy is critical for Tesla, whose sky-high valuation is largely dependent on bringing robotaxis to market, some analysts say.

The company reported lackluster results in its latest earnings report and has fallen behind other automakers working on autonomous vehicle technology. These include Alphabet-owned Waymo, which is already commercially operating fully autonomous taxis in several U.S. cities, GM’s Cruise and Amazon’s Zoox. In China, competitors include Didi and Baidu.

Tesla hopes Dojo, which Musk says has been running tasks for Tesla since 2023, will change that. A Tesla robotaxi event originally scheduled for August is now expected to occur in early October.

Dojo can also be useful for training Tesla’s humanoid robot, Optimus, which the company plans to use in its factories starting next year. Musk has said that Tesla plans to spend $10 billion this year on AI.

Musk is also betting on supercomputers to run his new AI venture xAI. Musk launched xAI in 2023 to develop large language models and AI products, like its chatbot Grok, as an alternative to AI tools created by OpenAI, Microsoft and Google.

Despite being one of its founders, Elon Musk left OpenAI in 2018 and has since become one of the company’s harshest critics. In June, it was announced that xAI would build a supercomputer in Memphis, Tennessee to train Grok. In early September, Musk revealed that a portion of the Memphis supercomputer, called Colossus, was already online.

To learn more about Elon Musk’s supercomputer plans, watch the video.

Continue Reading

Trending