Gnosly

"A Democrat sweep is a threat to asset prices: would be accompanied by policies to lower inflation, healthcare, improve affordability challenge K-shape wealth boom, AI capex boom, stocks "too big to fail" Wall Street zeitgeist." - Hartnett

🔴 OpenAI GPT-6 Astra was trained on 100,000 GPUs and cost $1 billion, yet it is only 3% better than an open-source model.In other words, an open-source model can achieve 97% of GPT-6 Astra’s capabilities. So, does training a new model by investing billions of dollars really make any sense?To get the answer, you first have to realize that continuous improvement in AI models requires more data, more GPUs, and longer training.An open-source model means the parameters—the rules of the AI game—are open. You can see them and inspect them. With a closed model, those parameters are not disclosed to the public.The fact is, to release the parameters of an open-source model, the developers also need to train the model. Otherwise, how would they obtain those parameters?And it is highly likely that almost all open-source models are, in some form, derived from closed models—and that is completely fine.So, without continuous improvement in frontier closed models, there will also be less and less improvement in open-source models. Without additional training, development eventually comes from algorithmic efficiency gains, and efficiency gains cannot increase forever.So yes, the world needs closed models that are vastly more powerful than GPT-6 Astra.And a 3% improvement in intelligence is huge—enormous.How?The difference between your local zoo and your community is only a few percentage points of intelligence.A tiny change or improvement in intelligence can create a sea of difference.So yes, it is totally fine to invest billions of dollars for a 3% improvement.GPT-6 Astra cost $1 billion to train. Soon, we will see $10 billion spent to train a single model.And by 2030, we will see a model that requires $100 billion just to train.AI isn’t stopping. No way.

Kevin Warsh’s Jackson Hole speech created a paradox. He sounded hawkish, recommitting to the PCE index as the Fed's inflation guide. Yet markets are pricing only a 50% chance of a September hike. This is far below the near certainty we typically see before FOMC meetings.The market is treating the upcoming FOMC as a coin flip, but it is underestimating the magnitude of volatility that could occur, regardless of outcome.Chart highlights the anomaly. Historically, markets price 88 to 100% certainty for Fed action two weeks before an FOMC meeting. The current 50% probability is a big deviation, signaling internal confusion.Source: TME