I'm also curious how a global leader in multimodal generative AI chose this particular image. Did they prompt a generator for a super messy impressionist painting of red construction cranes with visible brush strokes, distorted to the point of barely being able to discern what the image represents?
Considering Stargate's introduction and plan seems to be a super messy concept of impressions of ideas and very lacking in details, the picture makes a lot of sense. Let AI evangelists see the future in the fuzz; let AI pessimists see failure in the abstract; let investors see $$$ in their pockets.
For me it's watching a gay man grovel at the feet of one of the most anti-LGBT politicians, a day after Trump signed multiple executive orders that dehumanized Altman and the LGBT community. Every token thinks they're special until they're spent.
Trump was the first president to come into office supporting gay marriage. Trump only has a problem with the "t" part of the community and only in bathrooms and sports, not in general.
>For me it's watching a gay man grovel at the feet of one of the most anti-LGBT politicians
Besides what ImJamal said, as a wealthy playboy man-about-town hanging out at Studio 54 in the '70s and '80s, I guarantee Trump has known and been friends with more gays than 95% of Americans. Certainly there has been no shortage of gay people among his top-level appointees in either his first or second administrations.
What is he so anti about? He is against adding other official genders than the biological ones we have at birth. But he isn't against people wanting to be called whatever they want in informal situations. And he is against trans surgery at young ages when children aren't fully grown and adult enough to make such drastic interventions. But he is not against adult people wanting to be whatever they want.
AGI is the magic bullet to all of humanity's problems for some people. There is no explanation of how AGI will accomplish such things, just a belief that it will.
Unfortunately that figure wouldn’t get everyone healthcare in the US. I agree though, it could be deployed for better use but someone needs to think of those poor desperate shareholders.
It'll do this one, certainly. Maybe not the most cost-effective jobs program, but I expect there will be many construction and data centre jobs in the next few years.
Health care can’t be solved by just throwing a shitload of money at it. I’m skeptical about food production as well.
Now quality transportation (trains and metros that work), cheap & accessible housing, and cheap energy might be a good idea because IIUC those are just super large price tags
Sometimes the person writing the copy is writing it because they talk good, not because they are the biggest proponent of the idea.
Give a clever, articulate person a task to write about something they don't believe in and they will include the subtlest of barbs, weak praise, or both.
That was literally my question. Is this basically just for more datacenters, NVidia chips, and electricity with a sprinkling of engineers to run it all? If so, then that $500bn should NOT be invested in today's tech, but instead in making more powerful and power efficient chips, IMO.
$500bn of usefully deployed engineering, mostly software, seems like it would put AMD far ahead of Nvidia. Actually usefully deploying large amounts of money is not so easy, though, and this would still go through TSMC.
Nvidia and TSMC are already working on more powerful and efficient chips, but the physical limits to scaling mean lots more power is going to be used in each new generation of chips. They might improve by offering specific features such as FP4, but Moore's law is still dead.
I'll make a wild guess that they will be building data centers and maybe robotic labs. They are starting with 100B of committed by mostly Softbank, but probably not transacted yet, money.
> building new AI infrastructure for OpenAI in the United States
The carrot is probably something like - we will build enough compute to make a supper intelligence that will solve all the problems, ???, profit.
If we look at the processing requirements in nature, I think that the main trend in AI going forward is going to be doing more with less, not doing less with more, as the current scaling is going.
Thermodynamic neural networks may also basically turn everything on its ear, especially if we figure out how to scale them like NAND flash.
If anything, I would estimate that this is a space-race type effort to “win” the AI “wars”. In the short term, it might work. In the long term, it’s probably going to result in a massive glut in accelerated data center capacity.
The trend of technology is towards doing better than natural processes, not doing it 100000x less efficiently. I don’t think AI will be an exception.
If we look at what is -theoretically- possible using thermodynamic wells, with current model architectures, for instance, we could (theoretically) make a network that applies 1t parameters in something like 1cm2. It would use about 20watts, back of the napkin, and be able to generate a few thousand T/S.
Operational thermodynamic wells have already been demonstrated en silica. There are scaling challenges, cooling requirements, etc but AFAIK no theoretical roadblocks to scaling.
Obviously, the theoretical doesn’t translate to results, but it does correlate strongly with the trend.
So the real question is, what can we build that can only be done if there are hundreds of millions of NVIDIA GPUs sitting around idle in ten years? Or alternatively, if those systems are depreciated and available on secondary markets?
Extropic (and others) are working on it. It’s a very fast and efficient way to do the big math and state problems associated with LLMs and ML in general. It does the complex matrix algebra in a single “gate” as an analog system.
Reasonably speaking, there is no way they can know how they plan to invest $500 billion dollars. The current generation of large language models basically use all human text thats ever been created for the parameters... not really sure where you go after than using the same tech.
That's not really true - the current generation, as in "of the last three months", uses reinforcement learning to synthesize new training data for themselves: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-Zero
Right but that's kind of the point: there's no way forward which could benefit from "moar data". In fact it's weird we need so much data now - i.e. my son in learning to talk hardly needs to have read the complete works of Shakespeare.
If it's possible to produce intelligence from just ingesting text, then current tech companies have all the data they need from their initial scrapes of the internet. They don't need more. That's different to keeping models up to date on current affairs.
> Notably, it is the first open research to validate that reasoning capabilities of LLMs can be incentivized purely through RL, without the need for SFT.
It seems to me you could generate a lot of fresh information from running every youtube video, every hour of TV on archive.org, every movie on the pirate bay -- do scene by scene image captioning + high quality whisper transcriptions (not whatever junk auto-transcription YouTube has applied), and use that to produce screenplays of everything anyone has ever seen.
I'm not sure why I've never heard of this being done, it would be a good use of GPUs in between training runs.
> a lot of fresh information from running every youtube video
EVERY youtube video?? Even the 9/11 truther videos? Sandy Hook conspiracy videos? Flat earth? Even the blatantly racist? This would be some bad training data without some pruning.
The best videos would be those where you accidentally start recording and you get 2 hours of naturalistic conversation between real people in reality. Not sure how often they are uploaded to YouTube.
Part of the reason that kids need less material is that the aren't just listening, they are also able to do experiments to see what works and what doesn't.
The fact that OpenAI can just scrape all of Youtube and Google isn't even taking legal action or attempting to stop it is wild to me. Is Google just asleep?
what are they going to use to sue - DMCA? OpenAI (and others) are scraping everything imaginable (MS is scraping private Github repos…) - don’t think anyone in the current government will be regulating any of this anytime soon
Such a biased source of data-that gets them all the LaTeX source for my homeworks, but not my professor's grading of the homework, and not the invaluable words I get from my professor at office hours. No wonder the LLMs have bizarre blindnesses in different directions.
The latest hype is around "agents", everyone will have agents to do things for them. The agents will incidentally collect real-time data on everything everyone uses them for. Presto! Tons of new training data. You are the product.
I thought this meant it was $500 billion in government money.
Some of these companies do have huge cash reserves they don't know what to do with so if it is $500 billion of private money, I am not going to complain.
I will believe it when I see it though and that this isn't a 100 billion in private money with a 400 billion dollar free US government put option for the "private" investors if things don't go perfect.
No state income tax, fewer regulations (zoning, environmental regulations) than other parts of the country, relatively cheap power, large existing industrial base. For skilled labor that last bit is important. Also one of the cheapest states wrt minimum wage (same as federal, nothing added), which is important for unskilled labor.
Depending on the part of the state, relatively low costs of living which is helpful if you don't like paying people much. Large areas that are relatively undeveloped or underdeveloped which can mean cheaper land.
Texas has a .... unique energy market (literally! They don't connect to the national grid so they can avoid US Government regulations- that way it's not interstate commerce). Because of that spot prices fluctuate very wildly up and down, depending on the weather, demand, and their large quantity of renewables (Texas is good for solar and wind energy). When the weather is good for renewables they have very cheap electricity (lots of production and can't sell to anyone outside the state), when the weather is bad they can have incredibly expensive electricity (less production, can't buy from anyone outside the state). Larger markets, able to pull from larger pools of producers and consumers, just fluctuate less.
I know some bitcoin miners liked to be in Texas and basically worked as energy speculators: when electricity was cheap they would mine bitcoin, when it was expensive they shut down their plant- sometimes they even got paid by producers to shut-down their plant! I would bet that you could do a lot of that with AI training as well, given good checkpointing.
You wouldn't want to do inference there (which needs to be responsive and doesn't like 'oh this plant is going to shut down in one minute because a storm just came up') but for training it should be fine?
~$125B per year would be 2-3% of all domestic investment. It's similar in scale to the GDP of a small middle income country.
If the electric grid — particularly the interconnection queue — is already the bottleneck to data center deployment, is something on this scale even close to possible? If it's a rationalized policy framework (big if!), I would guess there's some major permitting reform announcement coming soon.
How much capacity does solar and wind add compared to nuclear, per square foot of land used? Also I thought the new administration was placing a ban on new renewable installations.
The ban is on offshore wind and for government loans for renewables. Won't really affect Texas much, it's Massachusetts that'll have to deal with more expensive energy.
Grid is fine, snow is melting, everything is business as usual. CenterPoint had 99.9% deliverability for the past 24 hours, and ERCOT has 14,781 MW in reserve power available (https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards/gridconditions). Source: I live in Houston.
I know this was tongue in cheek, but c'mon, we can respect each other, right? :)
Is the new rail you’re talking about the brightline?
It pretty much exclusively goes to and from tourist centers and is far too expensive ($40-$60 per seat each way) to deter most residents from just driving to Orlando. I wouldn’t really call it infrastructure (like the tri rail is.)
Not to mention that it’s the deadliest train in the US. People here barely follow traffic laws, but when you have it passing through major foot traffic areas every hour like on antlantic avenue in Delray Beach, people are going to get hit.
If you didn't intend your comment to be a snarky one-liner, that didn't come across to me, and I'm pretty sure that would also be the case for many others.
Intent is a funny thing—people usually assume that good intent is sufficient because it's obvious to themselves, but the rest of us don't have access to that state, so has to be encoded somehow in your actual comment in order to get communicated. I sometimes put it this way: the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I take your point at least halfway though, because it wasn't the worst violation of the guidelines. (Usually I say "this is not a borderline case" but this time it was!) I'm sensitive to regional flamewar because it's tedious and, unlike national flamewar or religious flamewar, it tends to sneak up on people (i.e. we don't realize we're doing it).
So you are sorry and take it back? Should probably delete your comments rather than striking them out, as the guidelines say.
I live, work, and posted this from Texas, BTW...
Also it takes up more than one line on my screen. So, not a "one-liner" either. If you think it is, please follow the rules consistently and enforce them by deleting all comments on the site containing one sentence or even paragraph. My comment was a pretty long sentence (136 chars) and wouldn't come close to fitting in the 50 characters of a Git "one-liner".
Otherwise, people will just assume all the comments are filtered through your unpredictable and unfairly biased eye. And like I said (and you didn't answer), this kind of thing is no longer in fashion, right?
None of this is "borderline". I did nothing wrong and you publicly shamed me. Think before you start flamewars on HN. Bad mod.
There have been literally 0 production SMR deployments to date so there’s no possibility they’re basing any of their plans on the availability of them.
just as likely to be natural gas or a combination of gas and solar. I don't know what supply chain looks like for solar panels, but I know gas can be done quickly [1], which is how this money has to be spent if they want to reach their target of 125 billion a year.
The companies said they will develop land controlled by Wise Asset to provide on-site natural gas power plant solutions that can be quickly deployed to meet demand in the ERCOT.
The two firms are currently working to develop more than 3,000 acres in the Dallas-Fort Worth region of Texas, with availability as soon as 2027
According to [1], the USA in January 2025 has almost 50GW/yr module manufacturing capacity. But to make modules you need polysilicon (25GW/yr manufacturing capacity in the US), ingots (0GW/yr), wafers (0GW/yr), and cells (0GW/yr). Hence the USA is seemingly entirely dependent on imports, probably from China which has 95%+ of the global wafer manufacturing capacity.
Even when accounting for announced capacity expansion, the USA is currently on target to remain a very small player in the global market with announced capacity of 33GW/yr polysilicon, 13GW/yr ingots, 24GW/yr wafers, 49GW/yr cells and 83GW/yr modules (13GW/yr sovereign supply chain limitation).
In 2024, China completed sovereign manufacturing of ~540GW of modules[2] including all precursor polysilicon, ingots, wafers and cells. China also produced and exported polysilicon, ingots, wagers and cells that were surplus to domestic demand. Many factories in China's production chain are operating at half their maximum production capacity due to global demand being less than half of global manufacturing capacity.[3]
Datacenters can still achieve ROI, but in some cases, it may take longer than expected. This delay is primarily due to the increased complexity of managing operations with the variability introduced by intermittent energy sources. While batteries help mitigate this issue, their current costs make them less competitive compared to non-intermittent energy setups.
> could something of this magnitude be powered by renewables only?
Perhaps.
For context see https://masdar.ae/en/news/newsroom/uae-president-witnesses-l... which is a bit further south than the bulk of Texas and has not yet been built; 5.2GW of panels, 19GWh of storage. I have seen suggestions on Linkedin that it will be insufficient to cover a portion of days over the winter, meaning backup power is required.
Hasn't the US decided to prefer nuclear and fossil fuels (most expensive generation methods) over renewables (least expensive generation methods)?[1][2]
I doubt the US choice of energy generation is ideological as much a practicality. China absolutely dominates renewables with 80% of solar PV modules manufactured in China and 95% of wafers manufactured in China.[3] China installed a world record 277GW of new solar PV generation in 2024 which was a 45% year-on-year increase.[4] By contract, the US only installed ~1/10th this capacity in 2024 with only 14GW of solar PV generation installed in the first half of 2024.[5]
> Hasn't the US decided to prefer nuclear and fossil fuels (most expensive generation methods) over renewables (least expensive generation methods)?[1][2]
This completely ignores storage and the ability to control the output depending on needs. Instead of LCOE the LFSCOE number makes much more sense in practical terms.
They say this will include hundreds of thousands of jobs. I have little doubt that dedicated power generation and storage is included in their plans.
Also I have no doubt that the timing is deliberate and that this is not happening without government endorsement. If I had to guess the US military also is involved in this and sees this initiative as important for national security.
Is there really any government involvement here? I only see Softbank, Oracle, and OpenAI pledging to invest $500B (over some timescale), but no real support on the government end outside of moral support. This isn't some infrastructure investment package like the IRA, it's just a unilateral promise by a few companies to invest in data centers (which I'm sure they are doing anyway).
It’s light on details, but from The Guardian’s reporting:
> The president indicated he would use emergency declarations to expedite the project’s development, particularly regarding energy infrastructure.
> “We have to get this stuff built,” Trump said. “They have to produce a lot of electricity and we’ll make it possible for them to get that production done very easily at their own plants.
I thought all the big corps had projects for the military already, if not DARPA directly, which is the org responsible for lots of university research (the counterpart to the NSF, which is the nice one that isn't funded by the military)?
Funding for DARPA and NSF ultimately comes from the same place. DARPA funds military research. NSF funds dual use[1] research. All of it is organized around long term research goals. I maintained some of the software involved in research funding decision making.
> but no real support on the government end outside of moral support
The venture was announced at the White House, by the President, who has committed to help it by using executive orders to speed things up.
It might not have been voted by congress or whatever, but just those things makes it pretty clear the government provides more than just "moral support".
Just as there is an AWS for the public, with something similar but only for Federal use, so it could be possible that there is AI cloud services available to the public and then a separate cloud service for Federal use. I am sure that military intelligence agencies etc. would like to buy such a service.
On the one hand the number is a political thumb-suck which sounds good. It's not based in any kind of actual reality.
Yes, the data center itself will create some permanent jobs (I have no real feel for this, but guessing less than 1000).
There'll be some work for construction folk of course. But again seems like a small number.
I presume though they're counting jobs related to the existence of a data center. As in, if I make use of it do I count that as a "job"?
What if we create a new post to leverage AI generally? Kinda like the way we have a marketing post, and a chunk of the daily work there is Adwords.
Once we start gustimamating the jobs created by the existence of an AI data center, we're in full speculation mode. Any number really can be justified.
Of course ultimately the number is meaningless. It won't create that many "local jobs" - indeed most of those jobs, to the degree they exist at all, will likely be outside the US.
So you don't need to wait for a post-mortem. The number is sucked out of thin air with no basis in reality for the point of making a good political sound bite.
> I presume though they're counting jobs related to the existence of a data center. As in, if I make use of it do I count that as a "job"?
Seeing how Elon deceives advertisers with false impressions, I could see him giving the same strategy a strong vote of confidence (with the bullshit metrics to back it!)
I'm sure this will easily be true if you count AI as entities capable of doing jobs. Actually, they don't really touch that (if AI develops too quickly, there will be a lot of unemployment to contend with!) but I get the national security aspect (China is full speed ahead on AI, and by some measurements, they are winning ATM).
Wow. What an idea you guys have there. Look - you maybe could sit homeless and mentally disabled on such power-generating bicycles, hmmm... what about convicts! Let them contribute to society, no free lunch! What an innovation!
No, he didn't. Both links have zero mentions of solar or wind, and very specifically define their terms thus:
"a) The term “energy” or “energy resources” means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. 1606 (a)(3)."
This is Trump accepting bribes from the legacy and fossil fuel industries to keep those "nasty" new clean energy sources from competing with them.
Notably it is significantly more than the revenue of either of AWS or Azure. It is very comparable to the sum of both, but consolidated into the continental US instead distributed globally.
Small or modular reactors in the US are more than 10 years away, probably more like 15-20. These are facts and not made-up political or pipe-dreaming techno-snobes.
> Small or modular reactors in the US are more than 10 years away, probably more like 15-20
Could be 5 to 10 with $20+ bn/year in scale and research spend.
Trump is screwing over his China hawks. The anti-China and pro-nuclear lobbies have significant overlap; this could be how Trump keeps e.g. Peter Thiel from going thermonuclear on him.
I work in the sector and it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years. That's the time for tried and tested designs. The tech isn't there yet, and there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide. The Department of Energy does not allow "off-the-cuff" designs for reactors. I think there is only two SMRs that have been built, one by the Russians and the other by China. I'm not sure they are fully functioning, or at least working as expected. I know there are going to be more small gas gens built in the near future and that SMRs in the US are way off.
> it's impossible to build a full-sized reactor in less than 10 years, and the usual over-run is 5 years
I'm curious why that is. If we know how to build it, it shouldn't take that long. It's not like we need to move a massive amount of earth or pour a humongous amount of concrete or anything like that, which would actually take time. Then why does it take 15 years to build a reactor with a design that is already tried and tested and approved?
When you're the biggest fossil fuel producer in the world, it's vital that you stay laser-focused on regulating nuclear power to death in every imaginable detail while you ignore the vast problems with unchecked carbon emissions and gaslight anyone who points them out.
Well, you do have to move a lot of earth and pour A LOT of concrete :) Many steps have to be x-rayed, and many other tests done before other steps can be started. Every weld is checked and, all internal and external concrete is cured, treated, and verified. If anything is wrong, it has to be fixed in place (if possible) or removed and redone. It's a slow process and should be for many steps.
One of the big issues that have occurred (in the US especially) is, that for 20+ years there were no new plants built. This caused a large void in the talent pool, inside and outside the industry. That fact, along with others has caused many problems with some projects of recent years in the US.
Guessing SMRs are a ways off, any thoughts on the container-sized microreactors that would stand in for large diesel gens? My impression is that they’re still in the design phase, and the supply chain for the 20% U-235 HALEU fuel is in its infancy, but this is just based on some cursory research. I like the prospect of mass manufacturing and servicing those in a centralized location versus the challenges of building, staffing, and maintaining a series of one-off megaprojects, though.
i don't and i honestly don't know much about it, but
> there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide
small reactors have been installed on ships and submarines for over 70(!) years now. Reading up on the very first one, USS Nautilus, "the conceptual design of the first nuclear submarine began in March 1950" it took a couple of years? So why is it so unthinkably hard 70 years later, honest question? "Military doesn't care about cost" is not good enough, there are currently about >100 active ones with who knows how many hundreds in the past, so they must have cracked the cost formula at some point, besides by now we have hugely better tech than the 50's, so what gives?
Yeah, I wondered about seacraft reactors myself. I think there are many safety allowances for DOD vs. DOE. The DOD reactors are not publicly accessible (you hope anyway), and the data centers will be in and near the public. There are also major security measures that have to be taken for reactor sites. You have armed personnel before you even get to the reactors, and then the entrances are sometimes close to one mile away from the reactor. Once there, the number of guards and bang-bags goes up. The modern sites kind of look like they have small henges around them (back to the neolithic!) :)
> It's similar in scale to the GDP of a small middle income country
I’ve been advocating for a data centre analogue to the Heavy Press Programme for some years [1].
This isn’t quite it. But when I mapped out costs, $1tn over 10 years was very doable. (A lot of it would go to power generation and data transmission infrastructure.)
One-time capital costs that unlock a range of possibilities also tend to be good bets.
The Flood Control Act [0], TVA, Heavy Press, etc.
They all created generally useful infrastructure, that would be used for a variety of purposes over the subsequent decades.
The federal government creating data center capacity, at scale, with electrical, water, and network hookups, feels very similar. Or semiconductor manufacture. Or recapitalizing US shipyards.
It might be AI today, something else tomorrow. But there will always be a something else.
Honestly, the biggest missed opportunity was supporting the Blount Island nuclear reactor mass production facility [1]. That was a perfect opportunity for government investment to smooth out market demand spikes. Mass deployed US nuclear in 1980 would have been a game changer.
They are trying. Microsoft wants to star the 3 Mile Island reactor. And other companies have been signing contracts for small modular reactors. SMRs are a perfect fit for modern data centers IF they can be made cheaply enough.
Wind, solar, and gas are all significantly cheaper in Texas, and can be brought online much quicker. Of course it wouldn't hurt to also build in some redundancy with nuclear, but I believe it when I see it, so far there's been lots of talk and little success in new reactors outside of China.
Two Toshiba 4S reactors at the 50 MW version can cost about $3,000,000,000.
Two of those produces 100 MW.
They don't require refueling for around 30 years. $6,000,000,000 to power a 100 MW datacenter when we're talking about $500,000,000,000 is not too dramatic. Especially consider the amortized yearly cost.
That's not how you calculate these things. Check [1] for an overview, specifically Page 9. Note these metrics do not include costs to handle nuclear waste, passed over into the future (at least 1000y).
Gas turbines can be spun up really quickly through either portable systems (like xAI did for their cluster) [1] or actual builds [2] in an emergency. The biggest limitation is permits.
With a state like Texas and a Federal Government thats onboard these permits would be a much smaller issue. The press conference makes this seem more like, "drill baby drill" (drilling natural gas) and directly talking about them spinning up their own power plants.
It is not the just queue that is the bottleneck. If the new power plants designed specifically for powering these new AI data centers are connected to the existing electric grid, the energy prices for regular customers will also get affected - most likely in an upwardly fashion. That means, the cost of the transmission upgrades required by these new datacenters will be socialized which is a big problem. There does not seem to be a solution in sight for this challenge.
It appears this basically locks out Google, Amazon and Meta. Why are we declaring OpenAI as the winner? This is like declaring Netscape the winner before the dust settled. Having the govt involved in this manner can’t be a good thing.
I am not sure if OpenAI will be the winner despite this investment. Currently, I see various DeepSeek AI models as offering much more bang for the buck at a vastly cheaper cost for small tasks, but not yet for large context tasks.
Interestingly, there seems to be no actual government involvement aside from the announcement taking place at the White House. It all seems to be private money.
> Still, the regulatory outlook for AI remains somewhat uncertain as Trump on Monday overturned the 2023 order signed by then-President Joe Biden to create safety standards and watermarking of AI-generated content, among other goals, in hopes of putting guardrails on the technology’s possible risks to national security and economic well-being.
Government enforcing or laxing/fast tracking regulations and permits can kill or propel even a 100B project, and thus can be thought as having its own value on the scale of the given project’s monetary investment, especially in the case of a will/favor/whim-based government instead of a hard rules based deep state one.
Isn't that a state and local-level thing, though? I can't imagine that there is much federal permitting in building a data center, unless it is powered by a nuclear reactor.
I generally agree that government sponsorship of this could be bad for competition. But Google in particular doesn't necessarily need outside investment to compete with this. They're vertically integrated in AI datacenters and they don't have to pay Nvidia.
They don't have to spend $500B to compete. Their costs should be much lower.
That said, I don't think they have the courage to invest even the lower amount that it would take to compete with this. But it's not clear if it's truly necessary either, as DeepSeek is proving that you don't need a billion to get to the frontier. For all we know we might all be running AGI locally on our gaming PCs in a few years' time. I'm glad I'm not the one writing the checks here.
This seems to be getting lost in the noise in the stampede for infrastructure funding
Deepseek v3 at $5.5M on compute and now r1 a few weeks later hitting o1 benchmark scores with a fraction of the engineers etc. involved ... and open source
We know model prep/training compute has potentially peaked for now ... with some smaller models starting to perform very well as inference improves by the week
Unless some new RL concept is going to require vastly more compute for a run at AGI soon ... it's possible the capacity being built based on an extrapolation of 2024 numbers will exceed the 2025 actuals
Also, can see many enterprises wanting to run on-prem -- at least initially
They’re a big company. You could tell a story that they’re less efficient than OpenAI and Nvidia and therefore need more than $500b to compete! Who knows?
Probably not popular opinion - but I actually think Google is winning this now. Deep research is the most useful AI product I have used (Claud is significantly more useful than openAI)
The actual press release makes it clearer that this isn't a lockout of any kind and there's no direct government involvement. Softbank and some of other banks persuaded by Softbank are ponying up $500B for OpenAI to invest in AI. Trump is hyping this up from the sidelines because "OpenAI says this will be good for America". It's basically just another day in the world of press-releases and political pundits commenting on press-releases.
Since the CEOs of Google, Amazon and Meta were seated at the front row of the inauguration, IN FRONT OF the incoming cabinet, I'm pretty confident their techno -power-barrel will come via other channels.
How involved is the government at all? I’m still having a hard time seeing how Trump or anyone in the government is involved except to do the announcement. These are private companies coming together to do a deal.
I hope the Japanese government demands seismic isolation for Softbank, otherwise it will be the Japanese citizens who have to foot the bill when this hype hits the ground and shakes hard the Japanese economy :/
Softbank should not be allowed to invest more than ARM Holdings sold at a loss.
Softbank doesn't have enough cash reserves for such a huge inversion. There are no details of how will they do, but one can guess that loans will be taken from Japanese banks and companies around the country, which -depending on how ambitious they are- will be scrambling to stay in business when the debt isn't repaid on time, a highly contagious chain reaction will arise, what will invite the government to use public money, even turning on the printer (on such cases citizens lose). Softbank alone has more than 65k employees.
If the Softbank's inversion is limited to their available assets, or the exposition of each lending is limited to a portion of their real reserves, I think such event will not happen (more than burned money by a bad inversion).
I think it would be quite similar to what has already happened on a global scale with the public money of each country in 2008 (due to the banking pyramid scam), or since 2011 with public loans to TEPCO, an event that could have been prevented if the central plant had been built were originally planned.
Like dwnw said, anything goes in Texas if you have money and there’s already a decent number of qualified tech workers. Corporate taxes are super low as well.
Leading state in new grid battery and grid solar installations for the last three years, and deregulated nuclear power last year. Abilene is near the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex area which has a massive 8M+ upper-income population highly skilled in hardware and electrical engineering (Texas Instruments, Raytheon, Toyota, etc). The entire area has massive tracts of open land that are affordably priced without building restrictions. Business regulations and tax environment at the state and city level are very laissez faire (no taxes on construction such as in the Seattle area or many parts of California).
I could see DFW being a good candidate for a prototype arcology project.
To get out from under OpenAI’s considerable obligation to Microsoft.
That is why there is the awkward “we’ll continue to consume Azure” sentence in there. Will be interesting to see if it works or if MS starts revving up their lawyers.
> This project will ... also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.
> All of us look forward to continuing to build and develop ... AGI for the benefit of all of humanity.
Erm, so which one is it? It is amply demonstrable from events post WW2 that US+allies are quite far from benefiting all of humanity & in fact, in some cases, it assists an allied minority at an extreme cost to a condemned majority, for no discernable humanitarian reasons save for some perceived notion of "shared values".
> This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.
> The initial equity funders in Stargate are SoftBank, OpenAI, Oracle, and MGX. SoftBank and OpenAI are the lead partners for Stargate, with SoftBank having financial responsibility and OpenAI having operational responsibility. Masayoshi Son will be the chairman.
I'm sorry, has SoftBank suddenly become an American company? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this.
Japan companies were a threat just a couple weeks ago.
There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that (1) Nippon Steel Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan . . . might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States;
1,646 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 411 ms ] threadIt will get weirder, but only relatively so, the concept of normalcy always trailing just a little bit behind as we slide
no one wants to bite the hand that feeds.
Besides what ImJamal said, as a wealthy playboy man-about-town hanging out at Studio 54 in the '70s and '80s, I guarantee Trump has known and been friends with more gays than 95% of Americans. Certainly there has been no shortage of gay people among his top-level appointees in either his first or second administrations.
ok... ??? doesn't mean a thing, frankly.
>Certainly there has been no shortage of gay people among his top-level appointees in either his first or second administrations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
It'll do this one, certainly. Maybe not the most cost-effective jobs program, but I expect there will be many construction and data centre jobs in the next few years.
Now quality transportation (trains and metros that work), cheap & accessible housing, and cheap energy might be a good idea because IIUC those are just super large price tags
Not sure why, but the word choice of "consumption" feels like a reverse Freudian slip to me.
But yeah if you're in the industry it's easy to forget how certain jargon sounds based on its dictionary definition
Give a clever, articulate person a task to write about something they don't believe in and they will include the subtlest of barbs, weak praise, or both.
(But yes I agree)
> building new AI infrastructure for OpenAI in the United States
The carrot is probably something like - we will build enough compute to make a supper intelligence that will solve all the problems, ???, profit.
Thermodynamic neural networks may also basically turn everything on its ear, especially if we figure out how to scale them like NAND flash.
If anything, I would estimate that this is a space-race type effort to “win” the AI “wars”. In the short term, it might work. In the long term, it’s probably going to result in a massive glut in accelerated data center capacity.
The trend of technology is towards doing better than natural processes, not doing it 100000x less efficiently. I don’t think AI will be an exception.
If we look at what is -theoretically- possible using thermodynamic wells, with current model architectures, for instance, we could (theoretically) make a network that applies 1t parameters in something like 1cm2. It would use about 20watts, back of the napkin, and be able to generate a few thousand T/S.
Operational thermodynamic wells have already been demonstrated en silica. There are scaling challenges, cooling requirements, etc but AFAIK no theoretical roadblocks to scaling.
Obviously, the theoretical doesn’t translate to results, but it does correlate strongly with the trend.
So the real question is, what can we build that can only be done if there are hundreds of millions of NVIDIA GPUs sitting around idle in ten years? Or alternatively, if those systems are depreciated and available on secondary markets?
What does that look like?
Extropic update on building the ultimate substrate for generative AI https://twitter.com/Extropic_AI/status/1820577538529525977
https://x.com/sama/status/1756090136935416039
If it's possible to produce intelligence from just ingesting text, then current tech companies have all the data they need from their initial scrapes of the internet. They don't need more. That's different to keeping models up to date on current affairs.
> Notably, it is the first open research to validate that reasoning capabilities of LLMs can be incentivized purely through RL, without the need for SFT.
I'm not sure why I've never heard of this being done, it would be a good use of GPUs in between training runs.
EVERY youtube video?? Even the 9/11 truther videos? Sandy Hook conspiracy videos? Flat earth? Even the blatantly racist? This would be some bad training data without some pruning.
Part of the reason that kids need less material is that the aren't just listening, they are also able to do experiments to see what works and what doesn't.
but also myriad of hardcore private repositories of many high-tech US enterprises hacking amazing shit (mine included) :)
How?
Wait, was it supposed to re industrialize the USA?
Some of these companies do have huge cash reserves they don't know what to do with so if it is $500 billion of private money, I am not going to complain.
I will believe it when I see it though and that this isn't a 100 billion in private money with a 400 billion dollar free US government put option for the "private" investors if things don't go perfect.
Ordinarily a joke would follow, but now America is volunteering to be the punchline.
They argue for about 4 years, nothing changes, and everyone forgets about it.
Maybe I just don't get it. Texas seems like an awful place to do business.
Depending on the part of the state, relatively low costs of living which is helpful if you don't like paying people much. Large areas that are relatively undeveloped or underdeveloped which can mean cheaper land.
Texas has a .... unique energy market (literally! They don't connect to the national grid so they can avoid US Government regulations- that way it's not interstate commerce). Because of that spot prices fluctuate very wildly up and down, depending on the weather, demand, and their large quantity of renewables (Texas is good for solar and wind energy). When the weather is good for renewables they have very cheap electricity (lots of production and can't sell to anyone outside the state), when the weather is bad they can have incredibly expensive electricity (less production, can't buy from anyone outside the state). Larger markets, able to pull from larger pools of producers and consumers, just fluctuate less.
I know some bitcoin miners liked to be in Texas and basically worked as energy speculators: when electricity was cheap they would mine bitcoin, when it was expensive they shut down their plant- sometimes they even got paid by producers to shut-down their plant! I would bet that you could do a lot of that with AI training as well, given good checkpointing.
You wouldn't want to do inference there (which needs to be responsive and doesn't like 'oh this plant is going to shut down in one minute because a storm just came up') but for training it should be fine?
If the electric grid — particularly the interconnection queue — is already the bottleneck to data center deployment, is something on this scale even close to possible? If it's a rationalized policy framework (big if!), I would guess there's some major permitting reform announcement coming soon.
I read this but it lacks information: https://apnews.com/article/wind-energy-offshore-turbines-tru...
So expect a bad result again for like the 4 time in 5 year.
I know this was tongue in cheek, but c'mon, we can respect each other, right? :)
If we taking cues from the leader of the country, probably not
Is the new rail you’re talking about the brightline?
It pretty much exclusively goes to and from tourist centers and is far too expensive ($40-$60 per seat each way) to deter most residents from just driving to Orlando. I wouldn’t really call it infrastructure (like the tri rail is.)
Not to mention that it’s the deadliest train in the US. People here barely follow traffic laws, but when you have it passing through major foot traffic areas every hour like on antlantic avenue in Delray Beach, people are going to get hit.
Yes, I’d rather not have that.
I’d rather them just add a route from palm beach to Tampa. Or extend the tri rail to Orlando.
The brightline prices out most residents, since it’s just about as expensive (or cheaper) to drive as it is to take the brightline.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/death-train-a-timeline-of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Investment_and_...
> Of the Act's top ten recipients, seven states had voted majority Republican, with Wyoming ($1.95 billion) and Texas ($1.71 billion) in the lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act#Impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act#Implem...
"Eschew flamebait."
Let's not have regional flamewar on HN please.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Governor says our power grid is the best in the universe. Why don't you believe us?
Stop breaking your own rules.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Let's not ruin HN with overmoderation. This kind of thing is no longer in fashion, right?
Intent is a funny thing—people usually assume that good intent is sufficient because it's obvious to themselves, but the rest of us don't have access to that state, so has to be encoded somehow in your actual comment in order to get communicated. I sometimes put it this way: the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I take your point at least halfway though, because it wasn't the worst violation of the guidelines. (Usually I say "this is not a borderline case" but this time it was!) I'm sensitive to regional flamewar because it's tedious and, unlike national flamewar or religious flamewar, it tends to sneak up on people (i.e. we don't realize we're doing it).
I live, work, and posted this from Texas, BTW...
Also it takes up more than one line on my screen. So, not a "one-liner" either. If you think it is, please follow the rules consistently and enforce them by deleting all comments on the site containing one sentence or even paragraph. My comment was a pretty long sentence (136 chars) and wouldn't come close to fitting in the 50 characters of a Git "one-liner".
Otherwise, people will just assume all the comments are filtered through your unpredictable and unfairly biased eye. And like I said (and you didn't answer), this kind of thing is no longer in fashion, right?
None of this is "borderline". I did nothing wrong and you publicly shamed me. Think before you start flamewars on HN. Bad mod.
The companies said they will develop land controlled by Wise Asset to provide on-site natural gas power plant solutions that can be quickly deployed to meet demand in the ERCOT.
The two firms are currently working to develop more than 3,000 acres in the Dallas-Fort Worth region of Texas, with availability as soon as 2027
[0] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/rpower-and-wise-a...
[1.a] https://enchantedrock.com/data-centers/
[1.b] https://www.powermag.com/vistra-in-talks-to-expand-power-for...
Even when accounting for announced capacity expansion, the USA is currently on target to remain a very small player in the global market with announced capacity of 33GW/yr polysilicon, 13GW/yr ingots, 24GW/yr wafers, 49GW/yr cells and 83GW/yr modules (13GW/yr sovereign supply chain limitation).
In 2024, China completed sovereign manufacturing of ~540GW of modules[2] including all precursor polysilicon, ingots, wafers and cells. China also produced and exported polysilicon, ingots, wagers and cells that were surplus to domestic demand. Many factories in China's production chain are operating at half their maximum production capacity due to global demand being less than half of global manufacturing capacity.[3]
[1] https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-storage-supply-cha...
[2] Estimated figure extrapolated from Jan-Oct 2024 data (10 months). https://taiyangnews.info/markets/china-solar-pv-output-10m-2...
[3] https://dialogue.earth/en/business/chinese-solar-manufacture...
Perhaps.
For context see https://masdar.ae/en/news/newsroom/uae-president-witnesses-l... which is a bit further south than the bulk of Texas and has not yet been built; 5.2GW of panels, 19GWh of storage. I have seen suggestions on Linkedin that it will be insufficient to cover a portion of days over the winter, meaning backup power is required.
I doubt the US choice of energy generation is ideological as much a practicality. China absolutely dominates renewables with 80% of solar PV modules manufactured in China and 95% of wafers manufactured in China.[3] China installed a world record 277GW of new solar PV generation in 2024 which was a 45% year-on-year increase.[4] By contract, the US only installed ~1/10th this capacity in 2024 with only 14GW of solar PV generation installed in the first half of 2024.[5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
[2] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lcoe-and-valu...
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/advancing-clean-technology-manuf...
[4] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/01/21/china-hits-277-17-gw-...
[5] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-u...
This completely ignores storage and the ability to control the output depending on needs. Instead of LCOE the LFSCOE number makes much more sense in practical terms.
Also I have no doubt that the timing is deliberate and that this is not happening without government endorsement. If I had to guess the US military also is involved in this and sees this initiative as important for national security.
> The president indicated he would use emergency declarations to expedite the project’s development, particularly regarding energy infrastructure.
> “We have to get this stuff built,” Trump said. “They have to produce a lot of electricity and we’ll make it possible for them to get that production done very easily at their own plants.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/21/trump-ai-joi...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology
The venture was announced at the White House, by the President, who has committed to help it by using executive orders to speed things up.
It might not have been voted by congress or whatever, but just those things makes it pretty clear the government provides more than just "moral support".
Yes, the data center itself will create some permanent jobs (I have no real feel for this, but guessing less than 1000).
There'll be some work for construction folk of course. But again seems like a small number.
I presume though they're counting jobs related to the existence of a data center. As in, if I make use of it do I count that as a "job"?
What if we create a new post to leverage AI generally? Kinda like the way we have a marketing post, and a chunk of the daily work there is Adwords.
Once we start gustimamating the jobs created by the existence of an AI data center, we're in full speculation mode. Any number really can be justified.
Of course ultimately the number is meaningless. It won't create that many "local jobs" - indeed most of those jobs, to the degree they exist at all, will likely be outside the US.
So you don't need to wait for a post-mortem. The number is sucked out of thin air with no basis in reality for the point of making a good political sound bite.
Seeing how Elon deceives advertisers with false impressions, I could see him giving the same strategy a strong vote of confidence (with the bullshit metrics to back it!)
I'm sure this will easily be true if you count AI as entities capable of doing jobs. Actually, they don't really touch that (if AI develops too quickly, there will be a lot of unemployment to contend with!) but I get the national security aspect (China is full speed ahead on AI, and by some measurements, they are winning ATM).
Edit: Hey we can solve the obesity crisis AND preserve jobs during the singularity!! Win win!
There is this pesky detail about manufacturing 100k treadmills but lets not get bothered by details now, the current must flow
"a) The term “energy” or “energy resources” means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. 1606 (a)(3)."
This is Trump accepting bribes from the legacy and fossil fuel industries to keep those "nasty" new clean energy sources from competing with them.
Could be 5 to 10 with $20+ bn/year in scale and research spend.
Trump is screwing over his China hawks. The anti-China and pro-nuclear lobbies have significant overlap; this could be how Trump keeps e.g. Peter Thiel from going thermonuclear on him.
I'm curious why that is. If we know how to build it, it shouldn't take that long. It's not like we need to move a massive amount of earth or pour a humongous amount of concrete or anything like that, which would actually take time. Then why does it take 15 years to build a reactor with a design that is already tried and tested and approved?
When you're the biggest fossil fuel producer in the world, it's vital that you stay laser-focused on regulating nuclear power to death in every imaginable detail while you ignore the vast problems with unchecked carbon emissions and gaslight anyone who points them out.
One of the big issues that have occurred (in the US especially) is, that for 20+ years there were no new plants built. This caused a large void in the talent pool, inside and outside the industry. That fact, along with others has caused many problems with some projects of recent years in the US.
We’re not doing time and tested.
> Department of Energy does not allow "off-the-cuff" designs for reactor
Not by statute!
> there are no working analogs in the US to use as an approved guide
small reactors have been installed on ships and submarines for over 70(!) years now. Reading up on the very first one, USS Nautilus, "the conceptual design of the first nuclear submarine began in March 1950" it took a couple of years? So why is it so unthinkably hard 70 years later, honest question? "Military doesn't care about cost" is not good enough, there are currently about >100 active ones with who knows how many hundreds in the past, so they must have cracked the cost formula at some point, besides by now we have hugely better tech than the 50's, so what gives?
112 reactors.
A gigawatt each.
Over 10 years ago.
I’ve been advocating for a data centre analogue to the Heavy Press Programme for some years [1].
This isn’t quite it. But when I mapped out costs, $1tn over 10 years was very doable. (A lot of it would go to power generation and data transmission infrastructure.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Press_Program
The Flood Control Act [0], TVA, Heavy Press, etc.
They all created generally useful infrastructure, that would be used for a variety of purposes over the subsequent decades.
The federal government creating data center capacity, at scale, with electrical, water, and network hookups, feels very similar. Or semiconductor manufacture. Or recapitalizing US shipyards.
It might be AI today, something else tomorrow. But there will always be a something else.
Honestly, the biggest missed opportunity was supporting the Blount Island nuclear reactor mass production facility [1]. That was a perfect opportunity for government investment to smooth out market demand spikes. Mass deployed US nuclear in 1980 would have been a game changer.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_Control_Act_of_1928
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_Power_Systems#Const...
Yes, a very interesting project; similar power output to an AP1000. Would have really changed the energy landscape to have such a deployable power station. https://econtent.unm.edu/digital/collection/nuceng/id/98/rec...
Data center, AI and nuclear power stations. Three advanced technologies, that's pretty good.
Two Toshiba 4S reactors at the 50 MW version can cost about $3,000,000,000.
Two of those produces 100 MW.
They don't require refueling for around 30 years. $6,000,000,000 to power a 100 MW datacenter when we're talking about $500,000,000,000 is not too dramatic. Especially consider the amortized yearly cost.
[1] https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
With a state like Texas and a Federal Government thats onboard these permits would be a much smaller issue. The press conference makes this seem more like, "drill baby drill" (drilling natural gas) and directly talking about them spinning up their own power plants.
[1] https://www.kunr.org/npr-news/2024-09-11/how-memphis-became-...
[2] https://www.gevernova.com/gas-power/resources/case-studies/t...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/t...
> Still, the regulatory outlook for AI remains somewhat uncertain as Trump on Monday overturned the 2023 order signed by then-President Joe Biden to create safety standards and watermarking of AI-generated content, among other goals, in hopes of putting guardrails on the technology’s possible risks to national security and economic well-being.
Build it on federal land.
> unless it is powered by a nuclear reactor
From what I’m hearing, this is in play. (If I were in nuclear, I’d find a way to get Greenpeace to protest nuclear power in a way that Trump sees it.)
That said, I don't think they have the courage to invest even the lower amount that it would take to compete with this. But it's not clear if it's truly necessary either, as DeepSeek is proving that you don't need a billion to get to the frontier. For all we know we might all be running AGI locally on our gaming PCs in a few years' time. I'm glad I'm not the one writing the checks here.
Deepseek v3 at $5.5M on compute and now r1 a few weeks later hitting o1 benchmark scores with a fraction of the engineers etc. involved ... and open source
We know model prep/training compute has potentially peaked for now ... with some smaller models starting to perform very well as inference improves by the week
Unless some new RL concept is going to require vastly more compute for a run at AGI soon ... it's possible the capacity being built based on an extrapolation of 2024 numbers will exceed the 2025 actuals
Also, can see many enterprises wanting to run on-prem -- at least initially
Trump probably wanted to start his presidency with a bang, being a person with excess vanity. The participating companies scored a PR coup.
Or then, consider that with his policies put forward the president brings investments to the US.
Wow.
Softbank should not be allowed to invest more than ARM Holdings sold at a loss.
If the Softbank's inversion is limited to their available assets, or the exposition of each lending is limited to a portion of their real reserves, I think such event will not happen (more than burned money by a bad inversion).
I think it would be quite similar to what has already happened on a global scale with the public money of each country in 2008 (due to the banking pyramid scam), or since 2011 with public loans to TEPCO, an event that could have been prevented if the central plant had been built were originally planned.
If I was an AI enthusiast, Softbank showing up would make me nervous.
The AI Stargate Project claims it will "create hundreds of thousands of American jobs". One has doubts.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider...
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2010/12/abandoned-remains-of-s...
I could see DFW being a good candidate for a prototype arcology project.
That is why there is the awkward “we’ll continue to consume Azure” sentence in there. Will be interesting to see if it works or if MS starts revving up their lawyers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
> All of us look forward to continuing to build and develop ... AGI for the benefit of all of humanity.
Erm, so which one is it? It is amply demonstrable from events post WW2 that US+allies are quite far from benefiting all of humanity & in fact, in some cases, it assists an allied minority at an extreme cost to a condemned majority, for no discernable humanitarian reasons save for some perceived notion of "shared values".
> The initial equity funders in Stargate are SoftBank, OpenAI, Oracle, and MGX. SoftBank and OpenAI are the lead partners for Stargate, with SoftBank having financial responsibility and OpenAI having operational responsibility. Masayoshi Son will be the chairman.
I'm sorry, has SoftBank suddenly become an American company? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this.
Edit: MGX is Saudi company? This is baffling....
https://www.mgx.ae/en
There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that (1) Nippon Steel Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan . . . might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States;
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/president...
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/japans-seven-i-deal-re...
Also, SoftBank is an investment fund. A lot of its money came from American investors.