Speaker 0:  imagine a single construction project costing $500,000,000,000. that's bigger than the entire economy of some countries. the creators of chatg2b, nvidia, and oracle are teaming up to build it right in the us. but the government thinks this dream team might actually be an illegal monopoly in the making. it's called project stargate, a massive collaboration between the heavy hitters of tech, openai, nvidia, and oracle. they plan to build a network of supercomputers across the us to power the next generation of artificial intelligence. while they claim it will cure diseases and secure us leadership, critics warn it creates a choke point where three companies control the most important resources of the future, ai computing power. what do you think about this, john?

Speaker 1:  yeah. i'm disappointed in the article itself because i thought that they were actually building a real stargate before i read it. so i was all excited that, hey. we ai's got something going on, and, they figured it out, and, we're getting, we're getting a portal to, to other dimensions or whatever.

Speaker 0:  so we've talked about project stargate before where they're planning on building a bunch of these, data centers across the us money from the government, on all this. so critics are now coming along saying, hey. wait a minute. and why only these three companies? why are they getting the money, you know, etcetera, etcetera. and it's all, you know, it is what it is. right? do you want to be leadership? you know, the us government says we need to be a leader in ai, and we wanna make these investments in whatever bidding process or whatever they pick these companies. great. now they're gonna say, why'd you pick these companies? why isn't everybody else involved? why? why? why? and they'll ideally figure out a better solution that includes more like anthropic and a few other people that get to be a part of this and potentially build a better, ai future for north america. but as it stands right now, this seems like a big boys club. what do you think?

Speaker 1:  yeah. so this is yeah. let's let's talk about that antitrust a little bit. so the guy from yale law, he was arguing that it could violate the sherman act and the clayton act, which are core us antitrust statutes. i think we covered the sherman act before. so these laws essentially prevent collaborations that restrain competition. it reduce price pressure or create monopolistic control, for those of you that don't know. so the concern isn't just about existing power, but future competitive harm. so when rivals share strategic decisions or infrastructure, they may have reduced incentive to innovate, undercut prices, or compete for customer independently. so, so the examples underscored include questions about whether oracle will continue aggressive pricing against microsoft cloud services when both benefit from stargate success or whether nvidia and microsoft will continue competing on their own ar hardware roadmaps when bound in a shared infrastructure venture. so it like, again, with the current administration, who knows what is gonna happen of this? in my opinion, i think it'll get the go ahead. if it was another administration, i don't know. what do you think?

Speaker 0:  well, i think, if they are smart, they would figure this out and take this to the supreme court now. if there are issues, like, get it dealt with this administration, next administration, if we're talking about this level of investment, and this is why it's hard to do this kind of infrastructure in the us, and canada and why, you know, nuclear is usually a problem because it takes years and years of investment. and if the political winds blow a different direction, the next admin can come in at any time and cancel these projects, and people are out billions of dollars. so yeah. the thought is, hey. get this figured out now because if this truly is for a us or north american or whatever ai at foothold advantage, then don't have a setback by the next administration because you decided to favor three companies that you decided to do these things. so i i don't know if we're on the same page. ahead, but i want it to go ahead in a legally approved and fair framework that gets approved by the supreme court so it doesn't get canceled later. and, hopefully, that includes more people, and, like, more companies and more what involved for whatever level at whatever level, but i don't know if that's what's gonna happen.

Speaker 1:  well yeah. but here's the thing. like and yeah. yeah. i i kind of agree with you. ahead, but i wanted to go ahead with a fair, legal analysis and check off, not a one-sided legal, if i can put it politically correct.

Speaker 0:  that's why i said go take it to the supreme court. like, that's why, i mean, you know

Speaker 1:  the supreme court is heavily favored to one side.

Speaker 0:  yeah. you say favored to one side, but they're favored towards the law. you know? let's sit back and say, here's the thing. the point is they're setting precedent for everything in the future. they're not just making one decision. that's why, you know yeah. i'm not gonna say it's this or that. you know, like trump, hate trump, whatever. the point being is put the legal framework in place that makes it fair, that'll pass the legality tech, and the supreme court goes ahead so it's legal for the future. what that means, have 10 ai companies, have more database companies, have this and that. but the other problem is if it's all the secure data, how do you secure all the people involved? how do you secure all the information involved and secrets don't get leaked? so some stuff needs to be done. but i'm a little bit of afraid of you know, the government gets involved in its analysis by paralysis. we spend all the money in, meetings and doing whatever, and nothing gets done. so i want the middle ground where we move forward with a solid legal framework that works because that's not a monopoly that, is however it works. say, hey. you're gonna build don't build one. you're building five of these. so don't build a $500,000,000,000 one. build three, $200,000,000,000 ones or whatever. and one's gonna be won by anthropic and somebody else. and one's i don't know. i have to, like, look at the data. but the point being is we have time now to sit back and say, this is great. we love the basic concept of the idea, but we don't know if i sit back and say in my capacity. i don't know if these guys are gonna be the leaders in two, three, five, ten years. why would we put all our money in one basket?

Speaker 1:  yeah. exactly.

Speaker 0:  so anti competitor, whatever, or just say, you know, if it was canada, and i say this is our ai future, yeah, sure. openai is a leader and what have you, but they've also proven that other companies can surpass them pretty quickly without so why would we not have google, openai, anthropic, you know, whoever, five or six saying, let's work together. yeah. let's figure out what that means. again, i don't know what that means. that might be separate data centers for each of these that we can pump into and use them specialty. and i'm also the right tool for the right job. you know? each of these, llms excel at different things. so when you start putting these together, i'm a, you know, a little concerned about the monopoly. i'm also a little concerned about, you know, the government just slowing things down. but yeah. i do want the stuff to proceed in a, a non monopolistic style so that we can actually proceed and that other companies and other things can start to do the same thing and compete because you put a legal framework in place. like i said, you know, if anthropic doesn't be part of this, they're raising for 300,000,000. they could work with someone else and say, hey. we're gonna do this and we're gonna compete, but we're building our own. great. we've already got the groundwork to show you how to do it. competition welcome. let's go. so i don't know how this is gonna turn out, and i'm not an expert on the ins and outs of legal stuff here, but i like the idea of where project stargate is going. and the medical breakthroughs and the other things we could get out of it, are just such a big advantage that i don't want to slow it down too much. so i'm with you that we have to make sure that there's some restraints with trade and monopolization, but now's the time. right? like, now is the time to address these issues and say, okay. this? how do we make more people involved? how do we take this stuff away and make it less barrier to entry for other people, and say, okay. we'll give you we're dividing up. we're building this data infrastructure, but everybody gets nvidia chips. while amazon says, we got our own chips, and google's got their own chips. why aren't you buying our chips? at some point, you have to kinda say enough's enough, but i don't know where that is.

Speaker 1:  exactly. yeah. like, this, like, this seems to me like it should be more like an rfp kind of thing, instead of just these companies coming together, if that makes sense. like, for each, stream of work or expertise, there should be an rfp for companies to to get involved. that's my opinion.

Speaker 0:  yeah. and, again, of course, depends on how much money of this is covering from the government versus private sector. yeah. you know, if most of it's coming from the private sector, i think we have less, say. yeah. yes. but we'll have to see. we'd love to hear what your thoughts are because you know, it's getting 500,000,000,000 is comparable to the national electric kid. right? and so they're building it in abilene, texas, new mexico, and michigan. there are three locations, apparently. okay. and they're using nvidia gpus, oracle cloud, and openai model. so investment at this level, creates barriers that competitors simply cannot match. investment at this level creates yeah. same thing again. the legal framework being used, to judge a futuristic ai projects comes from the sherman act of 1890, a law written a hundred thirty five years ago to break up rail, road tycoons, and oil barons. so we'll have to see. i do hope this goes up, and things get worked out so that it become building these big ai data centers becomes a regular thing rather than legal superheaps that people, have to jump through, but it needs to be accessible to the companies that are at the right level to do this kind of thing. so stargate could be the engine that drives humanity to a new golden age of science, but the price might be handing the keys of the future to just three ceos. do you trust a $500,000,000,000 monopoly to play fair, or should the government step in before the ground is broken? drop comments below because this affects every piece of tech you'll use for the next ten years. we'd love to hear what you think.