La burbuja de la IA

[muyuu]

https://www.anthropic.com/news/series-h

Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation


Anthropic has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.

Global enterprises across industries are deploying Claude in their core operations, and a growing number of people around the world use it for their everyday work. Since our Series G in February, adoption has continued to grow across global enterprise customers, and our run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month. This latest funding is expected to advance our safety and interpretability research, expand compute to meet growing demand for Claude, and scale the products and partnerships our customers rely on.

“Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” said Krishna Rao, Chief Financial Officer of Anthropic. “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.”

The round was co-led by Capital Group, Coatue, D1 Capital Partners, GIC, ICONIQ, and XN. Significant investors in this round include AMP PBC, Baillie Gifford, Blackstone, Brookfield, D.E. Shaw Ventures, DST Global, Fidelity Management & Research Company, General Catalyst, Insight Partners, Jane Street, Lightspeed Venture Partners, MGX, NTTVC, NX1 Capital, Situational Awareness LP, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc., and Temasek. It also includes $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, including $5 billion from Amazon.

Joining them are strategic infrastructure partners—Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix—whose technologies play a critical role in the world's supply of memory, storage, and logic chips. As demand for Claude continues to grow, these relationships will help us scale our compute reliably at the pace our customers need.

We have significantly expanded our compute capacity in recent weeks. We signed agreements with Amazon for up to five gigawatts of new capacity, with Google and Broadcom for five gigawatts of next-generation TPU capacity, and with SpaceX for access to GPU capacity in Colossus 1 and Colossus 2. Claude is the first frontier model available on all three of the world's largest cloud platforms: Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. AWS remains our primary cloud provider and training partner.

“Claude’s latest advancements have driven large-scale adoption among the world’s most demanding organizations. This momentum positions Anthropic to lead the next phase of AI innovation and capture the enormous opportunity ahead,” said Brad Gerstner, Founder and CEO of Altimeter Capital.

“Dragoneer has long partnered with companies building the technology that will shape our future. Anthropic is helping pull forward this future, as intelligence becomes an increasingly critical ingredient to the way businesses operate and how their products show up in the world,” said Marc Stad, Managing Partner at Dragoneer. “The technological progress we are seeing right now is breathtaking. And we believe that we are still in the earliest days of both the development and commercialization of this technology.”

“Anthropic has built an organization in which the world’s best researchers and engineers operate with unmatched clarity of purpose, because they believe this is the most important work they will ever do,” said Neil Mehta, Founder and Managing Partner at Greenoaks. “Rarely has a company’s culture, mission, and commercial momentum reinforced each other so completely. We are honored to deepen our partnership.”

“Startups and Global 5000 companies alike are deploying Claude to handle complex workflows, and in doing so, Claude is learning how businesses actually operate: the context, the processes, the judgment,” said Alfred Lin, Partner at Sequoia Capital. “Anthropic is building the bridge between where enterprise AI stands today and where it's headed.”

We are grateful for the support of our investors and partners as we continue building Claude for people and organizations around the world.

También han sacado Opus 4.8

[pollo]

Una mentira de bulto, que el modelo está aprendiendo no se qué al estar desplegado por las empresas por ahí. El tal Alfred Lin o es imbécil (que es probable) o es un hijo de puta (que es probable).

https://www.anthropic.com/news/series-h

Anthropic raises $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation


Anthropic has raised $65 billion in Series H funding led by Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks, and Sequoia Capital, valuing the company at $965 billion post-money.

Global enterprises across industries are deploying Claude in their core operations, and a growing number of people around the world use it for their everyday work. Since our Series G in February, adoption has continued to grow across global enterprise customers, and our run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month. This latest funding is expected to advance our safety and interpretability research, expand compute to meet growing demand for Claude, and scale the products and partnerships our customers rely on.

“Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” said Krishna Rao, Chief Financial Officer of Anthropic. “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.”

The round was co-led by Capital Group, Coatue, D1 Capital Partners, GIC, ICONIQ, and XN. Significant investors in this round include AMP PBC, Baillie Gifford, Blackstone, Brookfield, D.E. Shaw Ventures, DST Global, Fidelity Management & Research Company, General Catalyst, Insight Partners, Jane Street, Lightspeed Venture Partners, MGX, NTTVC, NX1 Capital, Situational Awareness LP, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Investment Management, Inc., and Temasek. It also includes $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, including $5 billion from Amazon.

Joining them are strategic infrastructure partners—Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix—whose technologies play a critical role in the world's supply of memory, storage, and logic chips. As demand for Claude continues to grow, these relationships will help us scale our compute reliably at the pace our customers need.

We have significantly expanded our compute capacity in recent weeks. We signed agreements with Amazon for up to five gigawatts of new capacity, with Google and Broadcom for five gigawatts of next-generation TPU capacity, and with SpaceX for access to GPU capacity in Colossus 1 and Colossus 2. Claude is the first frontier model available on all three of the world's largest cloud platforms: Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. AWS remains our primary cloud provider and training partner.

“Claude’s latest advancements have driven large-scale adoption among the world’s most demanding organizations. This momentum positions Anthropic to lead the next phase of AI innovation and capture the enormous opportunity ahead,” said Brad Gerstner, Founder and CEO of Altimeter Capital.

“Dragoneer has long partnered with companies building the technology that will shape our future. Anthropic is helping pull forward this future, as intelligence becomes an increasingly critical ingredient to the way businesses operate and how their products show up in the world,” said Marc Stad, Managing Partner at Dragoneer. “The technological progress we are seeing right now is breathtaking. And we believe that we are still in the earliest days of both the development and commercialization of this technology.”

“Anthropic has built an organization in which the world’s best researchers and engineers operate with unmatched clarity of purpose, because they believe this is the most important work they will ever do,” said Neil Mehta, Founder and Managing Partner at Greenoaks. “Rarely has a company’s culture, mission, and commercial momentum reinforced each other so completely. We are honored to deepen our partnership.”

“Startups and Global 5000 companies alike are deploying Claude to handle complex workflows, and in doing so, Claude is learning how businesses actually operate: the context, the processes, the judgment,” said Alfred Lin, Partner at Sequoia Capital. “Anthropic is building the bridge between where enterprise AI stands today and where it's headed.”

We are grateful for the support of our investors and partners as we continue building Claude for people and organizations around the world.

También han sacado Opus 4.8

[muyuu]

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/can-the-stockmarket-swallow-anthropic-spacex-and-openai
 ( https://archive.is/WNrzP )

Finance & economics | Giga-IPOs

Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?


Watch out for indigestion


Listen to this story
AI Narrated


They promise to be the biggest stockmarket debuts ever. On June 11th SpaceX reportedly hopes to raise $75bn from investors, by issuing shares that will begin trading on the Nasdaq exchange the next day. Elon Musk’s rocketry firm will probably soon be followed by two other mammoth listings. Anthropic, an artificial-intelligence lab, filed draft paperwork for its initial public offering on June 1st; OpenAI, a competitor, is expected to do so soon. The two are rumoured to be seeking as much as $60bn apiece. Together, the three giga-IPOs may add as much as $4trn to the market value of listed American companies in a matter of months.

How on Earth will the stockmarket handle this? Headlines predict a “trading frenzy”. Steve Sosnik, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers, one of the world’s biggest online trading platforms, has warned of the “existential risk” the listings pose. A particular worry is that compilers of stockmarket indices will grant the gigantic trio fast-track entry to their benchmarks. That would prompt tracker funds with trillions of dollars in assets to buy the newly minted shares days after they are issued. After exhausting a big pool of buyers straight away, who will be left?
The answer is: lots of investors in an extraordinarily deep and liquid market. Unprecedented as the serving of supersized IPOs is, America’s extraordinary stockmarket will gulp it down. In the years to follow, though, expect some indigestion.

First put the giga-IPOs’ size in context. In nominal terms, the current record for capital raised by a debut listing is held by Saudi Aramco, which in 2019 garnered $29bn ($38bn in today’s money) when it floated in Riyadh. SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI are collectively targeting $200bn-odd. Yet this is a rounding error in America’s stockmarket. Firms in the broad Russell 3000 share index have a total market value of $79trn; those in the narrower (but more widely tracked) S&P 500 index of big companies are worth $69trn.

As a consequence, investors in index funds will not immediately see their portfolios change much. Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.



This will change as more shares are released for trading. All but one of America’s listed tech giants have free floats above 85% (see chart 1); the lowest is that of Meta, which went public in 2012 and has 13% of its shares still owned by Mark Zuckerberg, its founder. At first, “lock-up” provisions in the IPO prospectuses of SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will prevent company insiders and early investors from selling their existing stakes and raising the free float. Over time, however, these will expire and trillions of dollars’ worth of new shares will come to market.

SpaceX plans to release its locked-up shares in a series of tranches. If its IPO issues $75bn of shares, valuing the firm at its hoped-for $1.75trn, the initial free float will be 4%. None of Mr Musk’s stake, which accounts for about half of the remainder, can be sold for 366 days after the IPO. This restriction also applies to some shares held by “certain significant investors”.

Lock-ups on the rest, representing a little under half of SpaceX’s value, will expire more quickly. After its first quarterly report, probably in August or September, insiders can sell 20% of their stakes. They can offload another 10% if the shares are then trading 30% or more above their IPO price. Extra tranches are due for release on set dates after the IPO, and after the second quarterly earnings report (see chart 2).



Insiders do not have to sell their shares, of course. Mr Musk, in particular, may hold on to his—most of which carry outsize voting rights and so cement his control of SpaceX. Similar considerations will apply to shareholders in Anthropic and OpenAI after the labs’ flotations. So the addition of these firms to public markets will unfold over years rather than days.

Gradual does not, however, mean inconsequential. If history is a guide, those who buy the resulting shares stand a good chance of disappointment. Jay Ritter of the University of Florida has studied the post-IPO returns of stocks listed between 1980 and 2024. The average such stock returned 20 percentage points less than the broader market over the three years after its first trading day. Firms valued at over 40 times their revenue underperformed by 58 percentage points. SpaceX, with a valuation of $1.75trn, would begin trading at over 90 times its revenue.

Blockbuster IPOs are also often taken as a sign that a bull market is nearing its peak—understandably, since firms want to sell shares for top dollar. The last surge in listings, in 2020 and 2021, came just before a bear market. Previous IPO booms, for instance in the late 1990s or the years before 2008, were followed by far bigger slumps.

Today, if the giga-trio underperforms, it may even precipitate a correction. All three firms are closely associated with progress in AI and so too, increasingly, is the wider market: America’s ten biggest listed AI-related firms already account for two-fifths of the S&P 500’s value. Bad news for SpaceX alone might not harm a tracker fund much; bad news for AI certainly would. Funds that weight each of an index’s component stocks equally, rather than by market value, offer some protection from this. But right now they amount to betting against the market—the opposite of passive investment.

A broader worry still is that the giga-IPOs herald more capital-raising, both by the newly listed tech giants and their older peers. For years, notes Victor Haghani of Elm Wealth, an investment firm, capital has been abundant and shares increasingly scarce. Tech giants have generated so much cash that they have been buying back shares rather than issuing new ones even as white-collar workers have ploughed retirement savings into the market. This drove up share prices.

Now the tech behemoths are slowing share buy-backs or halting them altogether, instead reinvesting their profits to develop AI. Several have turned to the bond market for more capital. And the club’s newest members are tapping the stockmarket. At the same time, white-collar workers are perhaps most in danger of seeing AI automate their jobs and immiserate their pension pots. Expect investors will go ga-ga for the giga-IPOs. A few years from now, though, the stockmarket may need to prepare for a capital diet. ■

[pollo]

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/can-the-stockmarket-swallow-anthropic-spacex-and-openai
 ( https://archive.is/WNrzP )

Finance & economics | Giga-IPOs

Can the stockmarket swallow Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI?


Watch out for indigestion


Listen to this story
AI Narrated


They promise to be the biggest stockmarket debuts ever. On June 11th SpaceX reportedly hopes to raise $75bn from investors, by issuing shares that will begin trading on the Nasdaq exchange the next day. Elon Musk’s rocketry firm will probably soon be followed by two other mammoth listings. Anthropic, an artificial-intelligence lab, filed draft paperwork for its initial public offering on June 1st; OpenAI, a competitor, is expected to do so soon. The two are rumoured to be seeking as much as $60bn apiece. Together, the three giga-IPOs may add as much as $4trn to the market value of listed American companies in a matter of months.

How on Earth will the stockmarket handle this? Headlines predict a “trading frenzy”. Steve Sosnik, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers, one of the world’s biggest online trading platforms, has warned of the “existential risk” the listings pose. A particular worry is that compilers of stockmarket indices will grant the gigantic trio fast-track entry to their benchmarks. That would prompt tracker funds with trillions of dollars in assets to buy the newly minted shares days after they are issued. After exhausting a big pool of buyers straight away, who will be left?
The answer is: lots of investors in an extraordinarily deep and liquid market. Unprecedented as the serving of supersized IPOs is, America’s extraordinary stockmarket will gulp it down. In the years to follow, though, expect some indigestion.

First put the giga-IPOs’ size in context. In nominal terms, the current record for capital raised by a debut listing is held by Saudi Aramco, which in 2019 garnered $29bn ($38bn in today’s money) when it floated in Riyadh. SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI are collectively targeting $200bn-odd. Yet this is a rounding error in America’s stockmarket. Firms in the broad Russell 3000 share index have a total market value of $79trn; those in the narrower (but more widely tracked) S&P 500 index of big companies are worth $69trn.

As a consequence, investors in index funds will not immediately see their portfolios change much. Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.



This will change as more shares are released for trading. All but one of America’s listed tech giants have free floats above 85% (see chart 1); the lowest is that of Meta, which went public in 2012 and has 13% of its shares still owned by Mark Zuckerberg, its founder. At first, “lock-up” provisions in the IPO prospectuses of SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will prevent company insiders and early investors from selling their existing stakes and raising the free float. Over time, however, these will expire and trillions of dollars’ worth of new shares will come to market.

SpaceX plans to release its locked-up shares in a series of tranches. If its IPO issues $75bn of shares, valuing the firm at its hoped-for $1.75trn, the initial free float will be 4%. None of Mr Musk’s stake, which accounts for about half of the remainder, can be sold for 366 days after the IPO. This restriction also applies to some shares held by “certain significant investors”.

Lock-ups on the rest, representing a little under half of SpaceX’s value, will expire more quickly. After its first quarterly report, probably in August or September, insiders can sell 20% of their stakes. They can offload another 10% if the shares are then trading 30% or more above their IPO price. Extra tranches are due for release on set dates after the IPO, and after the second quarterly earnings report (see chart 2).



Insiders do not have to sell their shares, of course. Mr Musk, in particular, may hold on to his—most of which carry outsize voting rights and so cement his control of SpaceX. Similar considerations will apply to shareholders in Anthropic and OpenAI after the labs’ flotations. So the addition of these firms to public markets will unfold over years rather than days.

Gradual does not, however, mean inconsequential. If history is a guide, those who buy the resulting shares stand a good chance of disappointment. Jay Ritter of the University of Florida has studied the post-IPO returns of stocks listed between 1980 and 2024. The average such stock returned 20 percentage points less than the broader market over the three years after its first trading day. Firms valued at over 40 times their revenue underperformed by 58 percentage points. SpaceX, with a valuation of $1.75trn, would begin trading at over 90 times its revenue.

Blockbuster IPOs are also often taken as a sign that a bull market is nearing its peak—understandably, since firms want to sell shares for top dollar. The last surge in listings, in 2020 and 2021, came just before a bear market. Previous IPO booms, for instance in the late 1990s or the years before 2008, were followed by far bigger slumps.

Today, if the giga-trio underperforms, it may even precipitate a correction. All three firms are closely associated with progress in AI and so too, increasingly, is the wider market: America’s ten biggest listed AI-related firms already account for two-fifths of the S&P 500’s value. Bad news for SpaceX alone might not harm a tracker fund much; bad news for AI certainly would. Funds that weight each of an index’s component stocks equally, rather than by market value, offer some protection from this. But right now they amount to betting against the market—the opposite of passive investment.

A broader worry still is that the giga-IPOs herald more capital-raising, both by the newly listed tech giants and their older peers. For years, notes Victor Haghani of Elm Wealth, an investment firm, capital has been abundant and shares increasingly scarce. Tech giants have generated so much cash that they have been buying back shares rather than issuing new ones even as white-collar workers have ploughed retirement savings into the market. This drove up share prices.

Now the tech behemoths are slowing share buy-backs or halting them altogether, instead reinvesting their profits to develop AI. Several have turned to the bond market for more capital. And the club’s newest members are tapping the stockmarket. At the same time, white-collar workers are perhaps most in danger of seeing AI automate their jobs and immiserate their pension pots. Expect investors will go ga-ga for the giga-IPOs. A few years from now, though, the stockmarket may need to prepare for a capital diet. ■

Lo que yo me puedo oler es que en el momento en el que estas peten (lo cual ocurrirá porque no hay nada que justifique la burrada que se está poniendo en ellas, monten los numeritos que monten) occidente estará totalmente vendido del todo y quedará en evidencia como la mierda que realmente es bajo la fachada.

Y que conste que esto lo digo porque estoy harto de ver la degradación de los valores y la sociedad en la que vivimos, y a dónde nos ha llevado la religión anglo de la pasta y el clasismo a costa de todo.

[pollo]

Pues nada, lo que iba a acabar pasando.

A ver si ahora sale a cuenta.

https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/06/02/0512209/github-copilot-users-react-to-new-usage-based-pricing-system

GitHub Copilot Users React To New Usage-Based Pricing System

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
In April, GitHub announced that it was moving subscribers from request-based billing to a usage-based model for its AI-powered Copilot service. As that new pricing model goes into effect today, many GitHub Copilot users are reporting some extreme sticker shock as they realize just how quickly their previous "normal" usage is burning through their newly limited monthly allotment of AI credits. Across social media and forums, many Copilot users are sharing personal statistics showing how just a few hours of AI usage can now account for a large chunk of their new monthly subscription caps. For some users, it reportedly took less than a day to use up a month's usage quota.

That's a big change from previous months, when GitHub Copilot subscribers were allocated a certain number of "requests" and "premium requests" based on their payment tier. GitHub said that the old system meant that "a quick chat question and a multi-hour autonomous coding session [could] cost the user the same amount," forcing Copilot itself to "absorb much of the escalating inference cost behind that usage." [...] Indeed, some Copilot users have been sharing estimates from GitHub's own tool showing that their previous monthly usage would rack up bills in the thousands of dollars under the new pricing plan. Under GitHub's new usage-based pricing system, paid Copilot subscriptions instead grant users a certain number of AI "credits" each month, with one credit corresponding to $0.01 of usage. Subscribers also get bonus credits depending on their subscription level: the $10/month Pro plan includes 1,500 credits ($15 worth); the $39 Pro+ plan includes 7,000 credits ($70 worth); and the $100/month Copilot Max plan includes 20,000 credits ($200 worth).

The precise number of Copilot credits used by a given prompt is determined by the number of input and output tokens used and the rates charged by the underlying large language model. That means pricing is highly dependent not just on the type of request but on the specific model that a user chooses. One million output tokens from OpenAI's GPT-5.4 nano would run just $1.25 on GitHub Copilot, but that same level of output would run $30 on the frontier GPT-5.5 model (Copilot users who rely on "Auto" mode to pick the most appropriate available model for any request should be extremely careful, as some users report it can switch to expensive models for extremely simple queries).

[muyuu]

https://www.expansion.com/economia/financial-times/2026/05/29/6a198dc3e5fdeaa0318b4596.html

https://www.expansion.com/economia-digital/companias/2026/05/29/6a1957ea468aeb7d1a8b4572.html

Saludos.

[muyuu]

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ddr5/32gb-of-ddr5-now-costs-usd375-minimum-ai-shortage-continues-to-squeeze-pc-building

32GB of DDR5 now costs $375 minimum — AI shortage continues to squeeze PC building
Lower-priced kits are disappearing by the day


As the demands of AI continue to consume manufacturing capacity at every level of the PC hardware supply chain, 32GB of DDR5 RAM — broadly understood to be the sweet spot for gaming PCs and enthusiast builds — can no longer be found for less than $375. Well, $374.97 to be precise.

RAM price tracking through 2026 will show you that kits that routinely cost less than $100 just a year ago are now fetching upwards of $240 (16GB). As the AI frenzy has taken hold, retailers far and wide have been pumping up their RAM prices to exorbitant levels. However, there's so much fluctuation and noise that average pricing is now something of a ludicrous fugazi. The going rate for 32GB of DDR5 RAM — the cheapest you can expect to pay — has hovered around $320 for some time, climbing past $350 in recent weeks. Price tracking courtesy of PCPartPicker now reveals the cheapest 32GB DDR5 RAM you can buy is $375. Specifically, four XPOWER kits from Silicon Power will set you back $374.97 thanks to a promo code. You can see the listings yourself below.


As you can imagine, this is enormous pricing pressure for enthusiasts trying to build gaming PCs or upgrade their rigs in 2026. A component that once cost less than $100 and was something of an afterthought now costs almost four times as much, and that's before you've even fired a neuron in consideration of aesthetics, timings, or brand. More popular kits from the likes of Corsair and Crucial, or RGB offerings to match the rest of your build, will easily set you back more than $400.

Of course, 32GB is really the minimum sweet spot you should be aiming for when building a PC in 2026. If you did want more capacity, 64GB will set you back an astonishing $679.99. 16GB of RAM as a compromise can be found for $200 at B&H Photo, but with SK hynix warning that manufacturing constraints will persist through 2030, there's no sign of prices letting up so that you can upgrade capacity any time soon.

The humble RAM combo deals we've been highlighting in recent months are a small source of solace for builders, letting you score RAM for less than the $375 going rate if you pair it with a decent motherboard, a processor, or even an entire set of PC components. A theme of ongoing Computex 2026 announcements remains a lack of pricing clarity on lots of PC hardware, including Nvidia's RTX Spark laptops and PCs, as well as new-build systems and, of course, RAM components themselves. Vendors are likely wary of scaring off potential buyers with higher-than-expected prices ahead of release. Perhaps more likely, the prices haven't been set because they're still going up. Storage isn't much better, with SSD price tracking revealing that drives which once cost as little as $38 are now fetching $200.

AMD is making a noticeable effort to keep PC gaming prices down, this week announcing the return of its Ryzen 7 5800X3D, and the advent of a new Ryzen 7 7700X3D. Intel, which warned this week that "something has to give" when it comes to memory prices, also teased dragging out some of its legacy products to give users more options on older memory technologies, namely Raptor Lake and DDR4.

seguimiento de precios: https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/#ram.ddr5.5600.2x32768


los bots superan a los humanos el tráfico monitorizado por Cloudfare : https://radar.cloudflare.com/traffic#bot-vs-human

la primera vez fue en 2025 y normalmente los fines de semana esto ocurría, pero ya parece que es algo estable

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.euribor.com.es/2026/06/02/el-preocupante-entramado-financiero-que-sostiene-la-burbuja-de-la-inteligencia-artificial/

El preocupante entramado financiero que sostiene la burbuja de la inteligencia artificial

Carlos López · 2026.06.02

Cuando Michael Burry habla, Wall Street escucha con atención. El gestor de fondos que se hizo de oro por anticipar la crisis de las hipotecas basura en 2008 ha puesto ahora el foco en el sector tecnológico. Según su análisis, detrás de los ingresos récord de la inteligencia artificial se esconde un entramado de ingeniería financiera que traslada el riesgo de las tecnológicas hacia los fondos de pensiones de los ciudadanos.

Este mecanismo permite que empresas como Nvidia y la filial xAI de Elon Musk muevan miles de millones de euros en equipamiento tecnológico sin reflejar deudas en sus balances, utilizando una estructura legal que recuerda a los complejos productos que provocaron la crisis de 2008.

La creación de empresas pantalla para limpiar el balance

El proceso comienza con una venta de procesadores de última generación por valor de 5.400 millones de dólares. Estos chips son esenciales para entrenar modelos de lenguaje avanzados, pero en lugar de venderse directamente a una gran tecnológica, la operación se realiza a través de una Sociedad de Propósito Específico llamada Valor.

Valor es una empresa fantasma sin empleados ni actividad propia, diseñada exclusivamente para figurar como propietaria legal de los componentes. Los chips se envían directamente a los centros de datos de xAI, la empresa de Elon Musk, que los utiliza en régimen de alquiler mediante un contrato de arrendamiento neto triple. De este modo, la tecnológica asume los costes de mantenimiento y los impuestos, pero evita registrar la deuda de la compra en sus libros contables.

Por su parte, Nvidia registra la operación como una venta cerrada, lo que impulsa sus ingresos trimestrales ante los inversores. Sin embargo, el análisis revela que Nvidia financió parte de la operación aportando 1.900 millones de dólares a la propia empresa pantalla. En el sector, esta práctica se conoce como financiación circular: aportar fondos a tu propio comprador para inflar las cifras de ventas.

El papel del crédito privado en la sombra

Para cubrir los 3.500 millones de dólares restantes, la estructura recurre al mercado de crédito privado a través de Apollo Global Management. Tras las regulaciones bancarias impuestas tras la crisis anterior, las entidades tradicionales evitan financiar operaciones de alto riesgo respaldadas por activos que se deprecian rápidamente. Las firmas de capital riesgo han asumido ese papel, operando con una menor supervisión regulatoria.

Apollo emite títulos de deuda respaldados por los pagos del alquiler de los chips y el valor de los propios procesadores. Posteriormente, vende estos activos a Athene, una aseguradora de su propiedad especializada en la venta de rentas vitalicias para la jubilación.

Los fondos de jubilación como soporte del sector tecnológico

A través de esta conexión, los ahorros de los ciudadanos terminan financiando la adquisición de infraestructura tecnológica de alto riesgo. Los clientes que contratan estos productos buscan estabilidad y asumen que su dinero se invierte en activos seguros, como bonos del Estado. En su lugar, sus fondos sostienen la expansión de servidores informáticos de última generación.

Para evitar que los reguladores nacionales exijan reservas de capital elevadas por mantener activos ilíquidos en cartera, la aseguradora traslada la gestión de estos fondos a filiales radicadas en Bermudas, donde la normativa de solvencia es más flexible.

Activos sin precio de mercado y un apalancamiento elevado

En esta jurisdicción de baja regulación, una tercera parte de la cartera de la aseguradora se compone de activos de Nivel 3. Según las normas contables, estos productos carecen de un precio de mercado observable, por lo que su valoración se calcula mediante modelos matemáticos internos de la propia empresa, un método que en el sector se denomina de forma irónica valoración imaginaria.

El riesgo se incrementa debido a que la estructura opera con un apalancamiento de dieciséis veces su capital. Esto implica que una reducción del 6,25% en el valor real de los procesadores consumiría por completo los fondos propios que sostienen el entramado, comprometiendo la solvencia del sistema.

El impacto de la obsolescencia tecnológica

La sostenibilidad de este modelo depende de que las empresas de inteligencia artificial moneticen sus desarrollos antes de que el hardware quede obsoleto. Los procesadores actuales pierden valor comercial de forma acelerada cuando aparecen nuevas generaciones más eficientes.

Si la rentabilidad del sector se ralentiza y las tecnológicas deciden renegociar sus contratos de alquiler, la empresa pantalla dejaría de abonar los cuotas de la deuda. Esto afectaría directamente a los rendimientos de la aseguradora en Bermudas, que se vería obligada a liquidar activos de calidad para cubrir las pérdidas de unos componentes usados cuyo valor de reventa en el mercado secundario sería residual.

La estructura se mantiene dentro de la legalidad vigente y permite a cada participante obtener beneficios inmediatos: el fabricante de microchips incrementa sus ventas, la tecnológica accede a infraestructura sin endeudarse y la gestora cobra comisiones por intermediación. El riesgo final, sin embargo, permanece concentrado en los fondos de los asegurados que sostienen la base de la inversión.

https://x.com/USronaldcarter/status/2061159657570242723

Saludos.

[pollo]

Esto es lo que realmente es la IA señores. Un tinglado financiero creado por gentuza megalómana que no dudaría en montar una dictadura, sostenido por un producto que no cumple expectativas y es extremadamente ineficiente pero quienes mandan (tanto en empresas como en gobiernos) no tienen la capacidad o el conocimiento para percibirlo.

Cuando esto se caiga por su propio peso, habrá que ver qué ocurre en EE.UU.

https://www.euribor.com.es/2026/06/02/el-preocupante-entramado-financiero-que-sostiene-la-burbuja-de-la-inteligencia-artificial/

El preocupante entramado financiero que sostiene la burbuja de la inteligencia artificial

Carlos López · 2026.06.02

Cuando Michael Burry habla, Wall Street escucha con atención. El gestor de fondos que se hizo de oro por anticipar la crisis de las hipotecas basura en 2008 ha puesto ahora el foco en el sector tecnológico. Según su análisis, detrás de los ingresos récord de la inteligencia artificial se esconde un entramado de ingeniería financiera que traslada el riesgo de las tecnológicas hacia los fondos de pensiones de los ciudadanos.

Este mecanismo permite que empresas como Nvidia y la filial xAI de Elon Musk muevan miles de millones de euros en equipamiento tecnológico sin reflejar deudas en sus balances, utilizando una estructura legal que recuerda a los complejos productos que provocaron la crisis de 2008.

La creación de empresas pantalla para limpiar el balance

El proceso comienza con una venta de procesadores de última generación por valor de 5.400 millones de dólares. Estos chips son esenciales para entrenar modelos de lenguaje avanzados, pero en lugar de venderse directamente a una gran tecnológica, la operación se realiza a través de una Sociedad de Propósito Específico llamada Valor.

Valor es una empresa fantasma sin empleados ni actividad propia, diseñada exclusivamente para figurar como propietaria legal de los componentes. Los chips se envían directamente a los centros de datos de xAI, la empresa de Elon Musk, que los utiliza en régimen de alquiler mediante un contrato de arrendamiento neto triple. De este modo, la tecnológica asume los costes de mantenimiento y los impuestos, pero evita registrar la deuda de la compra en sus libros contables.

Por su parte, Nvidia registra la operación como una venta cerrada, lo que impulsa sus ingresos trimestrales ante los inversores. Sin embargo, el análisis revela que Nvidia financió parte de la operación aportando 1.900 millones de dólares a la propia empresa pantalla. En el sector, esta práctica se conoce como financiación circular: aportar fondos a tu propio comprador para inflar las cifras de ventas.

El papel del crédito privado en la sombra

Para cubrir los 3.500 millones de dólares restantes, la estructura recurre al mercado de crédito privado a través de Apollo Global Management. Tras las regulaciones bancarias impuestas tras la crisis anterior, las entidades tradicionales evitan financiar operaciones de alto riesgo respaldadas por activos que se deprecian rápidamente. Las firmas de capital riesgo han asumido ese papel, operando con una menor supervisión regulatoria.

Apollo emite títulos de deuda respaldados por los pagos del alquiler de los chips y el valor de los propios procesadores. Posteriormente, vende estos activos a Athene, una aseguradora de su propiedad especializada en la venta de rentas vitalicias para la jubilación.

Los fondos de jubilación como soporte del sector tecnológico

A través de esta conexión, los ahorros de los ciudadanos terminan financiando la adquisición de infraestructura tecnológica de alto riesgo. Los clientes que contratan estos productos buscan estabilidad y asumen que su dinero se invierte en activos seguros, como bonos del Estado. En su lugar, sus fondos sostienen la expansión de servidores informáticos de última generación.

Para evitar que los reguladores nacionales exijan reservas de capital elevadas por mantener activos ilíquidos en cartera, la aseguradora traslada la gestión de estos fondos a filiales radicadas en Bermudas, donde la normativa de solvencia es más flexible.

Activos sin precio de mercado y un apalancamiento elevado

En esta jurisdicción de baja regulación, una tercera parte de la cartera de la aseguradora se compone de activos de Nivel 3. Según las normas contables, estos productos carecen de un precio de mercado observable, por lo que su valoración se calcula mediante modelos matemáticos internos de la propia empresa, un método que en el sector se denomina de forma irónica valoración imaginaria.

El riesgo se incrementa debido a que la estructura opera con un apalancamiento de dieciséis veces su capital. Esto implica que una reducción del 6,25% en el valor real de los procesadores consumiría por completo los fondos propios que sostienen el entramado, comprometiendo la solvencia del sistema.

El impacto de la obsolescencia tecnológica

La sostenibilidad de este modelo depende de que las empresas de inteligencia artificial moneticen sus desarrollos antes de que el hardware quede obsoleto. Los procesadores actuales pierden valor comercial de forma acelerada cuando aparecen nuevas generaciones más eficientes.

Si la rentabilidad del sector se ralentiza y las tecnológicas deciden renegociar sus contratos de alquiler, la empresa pantalla dejaría de abonar los cuotas de la deuda. Esto afectaría directamente a los rendimientos de la aseguradora en Bermudas, que se vería obligada a liquidar activos de calidad para cubrir las pérdidas de unos componentes usados cuyo valor de reventa en el mercado secundario sería residual.

La estructura se mantiene dentro de la legalidad vigente y permite a cada participante obtener beneficios inmediatos: el fabricante de microchips incrementa sus ventas, la tecnológica accede a infraestructura sin endeudarse y la gestora cobra comisiones por intermediación. El riesgo final, sin embargo, permanece concentrado en los fondos de los asegurados que sostienen la base de la inversión.

https://x.com/USronaldcarter/status/2061159657570242723

Saludos.