The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"; those get you blocked as a spammer), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2024-06-17 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Technology , 610 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's "AI" of course.

There is no such thing.  There never has been and I argue there likely never will be either.  Certainly, there is no evidence we're any closer to it in actuality than we have ever been in the age of computing, which runs back to roughly the 1960s.

Many will likely disagree with me on this, but you're arguing with someone who literally cut his programming teeth on both punch cards and reverse-engineering a Burroughs machine code print-out on green-bar paper without an instruction set manual by pure trial and error to map operators and operands so I could change a city tax rate in the bookkeeping software loaded originally from punch-tape, when Burroughs wanted an obscene amount of money to make a literal 10 second edit (since they had the source code, of course) and send over a new one.

If you want to know what that was yes, this is the machine series.  In fact it looked exactly like that, including the cabinet and attached upper paper handler (that was detachable and had a double-setup used for payroll and other things where both a ledger and check were required.)  Storage was core memory so it retained its program when turned off, but there was no persistent (e.g. disk) storage at all.

Yeah, that far back and that adventure was the first "revenue" producing computer-related thing I did.

Computer processing has never really changed.  Computers produce precise calculations at speeds which humans cannot match.  We produced a computer for the Apollo command module using the same sort of core memory that was in the Burroughs machine because due to physics it was not possible to carry enough propellant for the moon-going astronauts to be able to slow down enough to re-enter Earth orbit on their return.  The issue is simply that every pound you wish to carry into space you have to lift it off the surface of our planet first, and while we could engineer enough capacity to do that for the crew capsule and supporting machinery, then make the burn to get into a lunar transfer orbit, decelerate so you are "captured" by the moon's gravity and in orbit there, then accelerate sufficiently to head back to Earth adding the propellant necessary to slow back down so Earth would capture you on the return was not possible; there was simply not enough lifting capacity at the beginning to carry that much propellant.  No human could manage to hit the re-entry corridor on the return with the required precision even with precisely-aligned sights in the window -- the odds were too high that a human being attempting to do so would miss and, if you miss the corridor everyone on board dies either by burning up or skipping off the atmosphere into space.

Therefore being able to rapidly and accurately calculate the required trajectory, and execute it and corrections to thrust during the burns, was required.  This got tested, nastily-so, on Apollo 13 if you recall where the primary issue after the fuel cells were lost became both power for ship systems and oxygen for the crew.  In fact there was concern that their calculated corridor burn, which after the original incident on a correction basis was done by hand, was very slightly off -- perhaps by enough to kill them all.

As technology has advanced both the speed of processing along with storage and its speed have wildly increased.  But the fundamental character of how a computer works has not changed since the first calculating machines.  Yes, before transistors and even tubes there were calculating machines but they were all, even when mechanically-based, deterministic devices.  We have found evidence of such devices that, for example, calculated the precise date and time of solar eclipses.  Being deterministic, absolute facts a calculating machine can give you that answer, and it will be correct.

But "intelligence" isn't that.  It is not simply the manifest weight of how many times something is repeated, for example.  You do not need to see a child walk in front of a car and get smushed to know that said child will be killed by the car; the outcome is intuitively obvious to humans yet while we can describe the acceleration or impact that a living body can withstand without being damaged or destroyed we have to teach a machine that this is undesirable and thus to be avoided.

Worse, even after we do that its not enough because the machine cannot accurately infer from other cues in the environment that a child might be present where said kid cannot be seen (e.g. behind the bumper or hood of a vehicle) and might run out into the road.  Yet humans both can and do, every day, make exactly that sort of inference and we don't have to view millions of miles of driving video to do it either; we in fact draw that inference -- correctly -- before we have two digits years on this planet and have ever been anything more than a casual passenger in a vehicle.

I could go through a hundred examples from today and the so-called "AI revolution" that show this conclusively and that in fact no meaningful change has occurred.  Adding more variables and faster processing doesn't solve the problem because the problem is not deterministic and thus the computer is incapable of resolving it.

My cat is better at inferring where prey is hiding when he's hungry than the best of AIs and said cat consumes a tiny fraction of that AI's power budget in BTUs.

The hype around this so-called "AI" is ridiculous and what's even more ridiculous is the amount of power (and thus cooling) these systems require.  The idea that we'll all have one in our desktop machine (or phone) anytime in the near future is farcical nonsense, and that people will pay for their "share" of a large server farm which will amount to a couple bucks a day in power or more per user is also fanciful wish-casting.  Oh sure, sifting data at-scale is useful but the exponential amount of electrical power and RAM storage required for these "new models" is ridiculous and while yes, that will come down over time the existing hardware being built and sold for this purpose, when that happens, will be worth nothing as the power cost to run it compared against the newer stuff then available will cause that which was bought previously to have literal zero value.

When I ran MCSNet this was wildly in evidence and the cause for much consternation as buying any piece of technology equipment that could not be immediately used to generate revenue (not "on the come" a year or two later, but right now) was ridiculously dangerous.  You were paying today's price for a given level of performance but tomorrow's price was almost-certain to provide more capacity for less cost and thus the guy who bought to build something out that was going to take six months or a year to produce revenue from customers was very likely to get hammered by the guy who bought only when he had a revenue stream he could generate tomorrow with that acquisition.  The Pentium 90s, for example, were subsumed by Pentium Pro 200s that were more than twice as fast and consumed less power.  The 8 gigabyte SCSI-attached disk drives were soon subsumed with larger and faster ones.  I have tossed literal dozens of disks over the last 20 years (and a whole stack of DLT tapes along with its drive system) that were in perfectly good working order but there was no reason to keep them around as for a lower power budget what stored 320Gb and then 1Tb now stores 6, 8 or 12Tb and if you buy SSDs instead you can trade capacity for performance 10x or more greater!  The DLT15/30s were literally worthless within a few years as they couldn't cover even a single disk anymore.  As this occurs in technology the prior equipment becomes valueless as the physical space and energy it consumes costs more than the replacement on a per-unit-of-output basis.

Consider that said Burroughs machine up above would not be used by anyone in any business even if it was free because the electrical power to operate it now gets you less output than you get out of a literal solar-powered calculator and it has no storage so each operation must output a line to a ledger card that is then picked up by the operator the next time so it has the base data to compute from.  Thus the only place you'll ever see one today is in a museum.  This very same paradigm has been present in every form of computing for the last 70 years and its not going away.

The one computer in a rack in my basement has multiples of the processing power and storage than the entire data center at MCSNet and can deliver more than ten times the data flow of that entire data center yet it along with the cable modem and other required elements such as the network switch for the house consumes just 150 watts of electricity at moderate load and thus requires no forced cooling.

Today there are effectively no revenue models for so-called "AI".  None.  Everyone is falling over themselves to include the word in their corporate press releases and buy the hardware and power to operate it, never mind the programming and maintenance cost yet it makes said firms no money.  It is all a bet "on the come" that customers will appear and demand said tools, being willing to pay for them in the future.  That may or may not be true but what will be true is that the person who buys the gear only when the revenue is going to come in the door, and not six months or two years before that, is going to ruin the operating cost model of all of his or her competitors who bought earlier!

Research for the purpose of research is worth engaging in but never confuse the two.  The first has no defined purpose but might, with a very small probability, lead to some sort of breakthrough of tremendous value generally (although almost-never able to be confined to and thus profited from the entity that performs it.)  The latter is called business but all this speculative froth is not business as it has no revenue model today that reasonably pays the expenses and by the time that revenue stream develops the cost of providing it will almost-certainly be a small fraction of what it is today for a superior outcome.

These valuations are not just "elevated" they are nothing more than insane speculation on the next sucker to come along and buy as there has never been a circumstance in the evolution of technology in general and computing specifically where the above has not held sway.  In every case over 70 years has buying now with the expectation of developing a revenue model in the future has led to the other guy who buys only when he has revenue coming in the door tattooing his company name on your back.

Every CEO and CTO in the technology space knows this too.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2024-06-16 07:05 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 369 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

This isn't specific to one place, but one in particular I will not name brought it out in striking relief.

There is a lot of what those of us in the professional world call "deferred maintenance" going on and its visible.

Its not supposed to be visible.

Let me give you an example:

You have an amusement ride.  It has certain safety features (say, a walkway for evacuation if the ride stops unexpectedly because something breaks in the wrong place.)  That walkway has to bear all the people on the ride, obviously, to get them safely back to the ground.  Ok, so that's inspected and all looks ok there but the cosmetics around that are neglected and look like crap even though the walkway itself was clearly recently sandblasted and painted.

How many people notice this?  Probably not a lot.  But I do, and I've seen it in a bunch of places over the last year or two -- and its getting much worse.  Graffiti is one of these, of course; the graffiti doesn't actually damage the structure on which it is applied, but it sure does look like Hell.  Refusing to police that, clean it and lock up the people who you catch doing it (along with forcing them to clean it up at their own expense) is not a safety issue but it is in fact deferred maintenance!

The general state of repair, if you will, is going in the toilet in this nation -- at quite-rapid speed.  That's sad and is entirely-avoidable, but it appears nobody thinks its worth the effort to do anything about it.  I disagree in the general sense with that belief and this has always bothered me, just like someone not bothering to clean the top of their refer off by wiping it down every now and then does.  That won't make the refer break or use more power, but if they don't wipe that down did they bother to remove the grate at the bottom and vacuum the dust off the coils?

Look carefully around you in your daily travels and I bet you see this too.  Maybe you don't have much of a memory when it comes to the last time you saw a place and thing, but I'm the opposite.  I notice these sort of changes immediately even when I've not been somewhere for a few years, and when the split is between the functional and cosmetic its easy, even if you don't have a prior memory of it.

This is not a good trend.

Oh, and Happy Father's Day.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2024-06-12 08:41 by Karl Denninger
in Market Musings , 504 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is not a "cold" report folks....

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in May on a seasonally adjusted basis, after rising 0.3 percent in April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.3 percent before seasonal adjustment.

The unchanged was caused by a decrease in gasoline, mostly, which everyone has seen in advance.

But the index in rents and owners equivalent rent were both up 0.4% which would annualize to 4.9%, or 2.5x the Fed's "target" in these very large and unavoidable consumer expense.  Further, medical care (another mandatory expense for most) was up even more, up 0.5% on the month and what's worse is that prescription drugs were up 2.1% on the month which would annualize to more than 20%.

While the futures immediately spiked higher on the release if you think we're getting imminent rate cuts IMHO you're going to be dead wrong and what's much worse is that the immediate spike downward in the IRX/TNX ratio (more-deeply into negative territory) continues a now record long trend of said inversion.

The longer the markets continue to believe in that which there is in fact no evidence for, simply because at every turn rates have continued to inflate bubbles for the last 20 years along with the fiscal insanity in our government since 2020 the worse the eventual outcome when recognition shows up in said markets will be.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2024-06-10 07:44 by Karl Denninger
in POTD , 208 references


View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2024-06-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 313 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Oh look what we have here!

In a dramatic turn of events that could have far-reaching implications for renters nationwide, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an unannounced raid on Cortland Management’s headquarters in Atlanta on Wednesday, May 22. This action is part of a criminal antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) into allegations that Cortland has been involved in a conspiracy to artificially inflate apartment rents. This raid is more than just a legal drama; it’s a significant development that could impact millions of renters, including those in Rhode Island, who have been grappling with soaring rental prices.

The allegations in this article are damning; the goal is allegedly to prevent landlords from "undervaluing" their properties.

Its a felony to collude between providers to restrain trade or fix prices.  Even the mere attempts counts; you don't have to succeed.  This is not a "fine" style offense either; it is a criminal felony carrying hard prison time.  You could be excused if you didn't know this in recent years since virtually nobody in the corporate world is ever prosecuted for this conduct over the last several decades -- but that law has been on the books for over a hundred years, and was put into place during the time of Standard Oil and other monopolists.

There are some economists who have claimed that cartel-like behavior is basically impossible to police in that someone will always defect and take market share by doing so.  That's a convenient fantasy unsupported by the facts.  Find me, for example, a hospital or doctor's office that takes said approach and forces the others to match their pricing or go out of business for lack of customers.  I certainly did in the 1990s with MCSNet and spent a lot of my time and mental firepower trying to figure out how to undercut competitors and most of that focus was on how to do more with less internally; that is, to advance productivity.  But that's hard -- it requires a lot of effort and of course its pretty easy to be wrong when you go down a path you believe will lead to lower costs -- and it doesn't.

What's interesting here is that the conduct in question dates back to well before the pandemic, allegedly originating in 2015, and the allegation appears to be linked to a private equity firm that also bought up and combined a competitor to RealPage's management and pricing systems.

Algorithmic pricing systems are nothing new and are legal as long as they're constrained to a single supplier.  There's nothing wrong with a vendor deciding to use such a system as "yield management" (as is often done by airlines or a trucking company) but when extended over more than one competitor it raises serious legal questions.  Our government has flat-out refused to look at obvious areas where this sort of collusive behavior is in clear evidence (health care being the most-outrageous, but hardly the only place) but apparently the runaway cost of housing and political backlash from it has finally overcome glad-handing refusal to enforce long-standing law.

Now if we could just get the FBI to be equally-interested in similar collusive practices between hospitals and insurance companies, or the buying up of doctor and dental practices by both hospitals and private equity firms that also lead to price escalations that are even more egregious than in the rental market.

After all you can move somewhere else but its quite a bit more-difficult to decide to shop around for a hospital while having a heart attack, isn't it?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)