OpenAI is walking away from expanding its Stargate data center with Oracle

2026-03-0920:36421245www.cnbc.com

The OpenAI deal fallout exposes the fundamental danger of being the most leveraged player in a market where the chip cycle moves faster than the concrete dries.

OpenAI executives pivot on expanding Stargate to put capacity in other locations

Artificial intelligence chips are getting upgraded more quickly than data centers can be built, a market reality that exposes a key risk to the AI trade and Oracle's debt-fueled expansion.

OpenAI is no longer planning to expand its partnership with Oracle in Abilene, Texas, home to the Stargate data center, because it wants clusters with newer generations of Nvidia graphics processing units, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The current Abilene site is expected to use Nvidia's Blackwell processors, and the power isn't projected to come online for a year. By then, OpenAI is hoping to have expanded access to Nvidia's next-generation chips in bigger clusters elsewhere, said the person, who asked not to be named due to confidentiality.

Bloomberg was first to report on the companies ending their plans for expansion in Abilene. In a post on X on Sunday, Oracle called news reports about the activity, "false and incorrect," but the post only said existing projects are on track and didn't address expansion plans.

Oracle secured the site, ordered the hardware, and spent billions of dollars on construction and staff, with the expectation of going bigger.

An Oracle spokesperson declined to comment.

It's a logical decision for OpenAI, which doesn't want older chips. Nvidia used to release a new generation of data center processors every two years. Now, CEO Jensen Huang has the company shipping one every year, and each generation offers a leap in capability. Vera Rubin, unveiled at CES in January and already in production, delivers five times the inference performance of Blackwell. 

For the companies building frontier models, the smallest improvement in performance could equate to huge gaps in model benchmarks and rankings, which are closely followed by developers and translate directly to usage, revenue, and valuation. 

That all points to a bigger problem at play. For infrastructure companies, securing a site, connecting power and standing up a facility takes 12 to 24 months at minimum. But customers want the latest and greatest, and they're tracking the yearly chip upgrades.

Oracle's added challenge is that it's the only hyperscaler funding its buildout primarily with debt, to the tune of $100 billion and counting. Google, Amazon and Microsoft, by contrast, are leaning on their enormous cash-generating businesses.

Meanwhile, Oracle partner Blue Owl is declining to fund an additional facility, and plans to cut up to 30,000 jobs. 

Oracle reports fiscal third-quarter results on Tuesday, and investors will be paying close to how the company addresses a $50 billion capital expenditure plan with negative free cash flow, and whether the financing pipeline can hold up.

The stock is down 23% so far this year and has lost over half its value since peaking in September.

Beyond Oracle, GPU depreciation is a risk for the broader market and could have ramifications across the AI landscape. Every infrastructure deal signed today may result in a commitment to outdated hardware before the power is even connected.

WATCH: Jefferies' Brent Thill talks to CNBC ahead of Oracle earnings

Market may be overlooking Oracle's upside potential, says Jefferies' Brent Thill

Read the original article

Comments

  • By reissbaker 2026-03-0923:4020 reply

    I run a small open source LLM inference company, Synthetic.new. As far as I can tell, CNBC isn't reporting this accurately: the problem isn't that Oracle is building "yesterday's data centers": they're building Blackwell DCs! Those are today's DCs.

    The problem appears to be that Oracle is building today's DCs... Tomorrow. And by the time they come online, Vera Rubins will be out, with 5x efficiency gains. And Oracle is unlikely to want to drop the price of Blackwells 5x, despite them being 5x less efficient.

    It's a little unclear to me how bad this is. Nvidia's "rack scale" machines like GB200-NVL72s and GB300-NVL72s are basically a fully built rack you roll into a DC and plug into power and network. In that case, Oracle should probably just buy the rack-scale Vera Rubins when they come out instead of Blackwells and roll them into their new DCs. Tada! Tomorrow's DCs, tomorrow.

    OTOH it's possible someone at Oracle screwed up and committed to buying Blackwells at today's prices, delivered tomorrow. Or maybe construction of the physical DCs is behind schedule, so today's Blackwells are sitting around unused, waiting for power and networking tomorrow. Then they're in a bit of trouble.

    Regardless, CNBC's reporting seems pretty unclear on what actually happened and whether this is actually bad or not.

    • By torginus 2026-03-108:533 reply

      I really don't want to overrule your expertise in this regard, but an 5x efficiency gain in a single generation feels like its too much, especially considering how newer process nodes have been yielding less and less improvements.

      Just to compare and contrast:

      https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/power_performance.html

      Here's a synthethic benchmark page listing every GPU in recent memory. True, its not AI, but if we look at the 1080 Ti, a 9 year old card at this point, and compare it with the 5090 we see the gains were 190/74=2.56x in that timespan that involved multiple die shrinks and uArch changes.

      I think these numbers might not hold up on IRL workloads, and afaict older datacenter cards still hold up well and are being used in production.

      • By jurgenburgen 2026-03-1010:121 reply

        Newer process nodes are not the main avenue of improvement. What those transistors are used for is more important and it’s plausible that improvements between generations can increase performance by multiples on a specific task. All of the improvements aren’t necessarily in the chip itself either.

        E.g. the next gen might have hardware inference for lower bits, more memory bandwidth, etc.

        • By spwa4 2026-03-1111:58

          You could just give the TLDR: by far the biggest improvement in the different generations of nVidia chips is calculating faster at half the accuracy. For blackwell vs hopper it was "double performance". By which they mean blackwell can calculate with NXFP4 at twice the rate hopper can calculate at FP8. Then go back generations all the way until you arrive at FP64, where we started. They even made a slight detour to "FP128".

          Decide for yourself if this is a real improvement. You should probably consider that nVidia did not just give the new chips, but also demonstrated training a neural net with NXFP4.

          It's not the only improvement, but it is by far the biggest.

          As for the future: nobody's gotten FP2 to work satisfactorily yet. But hey, maybe at nVidia's next conference. But, even NXFP4 is not actually 4 bits (meaning various parts of the computation don't actually happen at 4 bits), and neither was FP8 (you could use it like that but people didn't)

      • By usrusr 2026-03-109:51

        Almost seems as if microchips are approaching their "B-52 age":

        "Those things are still flying! Introduced in 1955!"

        "But that was the B version, all those that are still flying are the H version, so many iterations between them!"

        "Welcome to 1962"

      • By re-thc 2026-03-1010:56

        > but an 5x efficiency gain in a single generation feels like its too much, especially considering how newer process nodes have been yielding less and less improvements

        The efficiency is in other areas too e.g. memory, network, etc. It's TOTAL.

        > Here's a synthethic benchmark page listing every GPU in recent memory

        We don't have the GPU gains not because of process nodes. Nvidia and later AMD stopped investing in that direction. They started optimizing for AI not graphics.

    • By zedlasso 2026-03-0923:541 reply

      they are saying what you are saying. At least Deirde Bosa did. I think there is a lot of folks internally who don't understand the gravity of it and keep questioning it.

      You are right about the building of today's DC's. There is a small part of me that feels Oracle might be a bit toxic long term with all this debt him and his kid have taken on. And this could be the first reaction to it.

      • By reactordev 2026-03-103:201 reply

        But this is exactly why Oracle is the wrong partner. They don’t get it. They never will. To them, it’s just a “workload”.

        • By devonkelley 2026-03-104:383 reply

          [flagged]

          • By neitherboosh 2026-03-107:134 reply

            > It's not a hosting contract, it's an arms race with a moving target.

            Why use an LLM to write an HN comment? What does anyone gain from this?

            • By aerhardt 2026-03-108:011 reply

              At least there’s a paragraph. I’m starting to see people use them to write two-line comments on LinkedIn. I am not exaggerating.

              I’m also dumbfounded by this rise of the AI foister. I can understand a scammer, but a normal person using it to produce a paragraph?

              • By therein 2026-03-108:56

                It is due to the insidious atrophy coming from delegating the utilization of those parts of the brain in other tasks and contexts.

            • By jiggawatts 2026-03-108:262 reply

              There are definitely companies out there working towards bots that can't be readily distinguished from human. Either for fake "organic" advertising or for propaganda purposes.

              One way to test and refine the bots is to have them post in more discerning forums like HN, tweaking the system prompt until people stop calling them out as fake.

              Once nobody can tell any more, then the comments will be subtly altered to deliver the intended message.

              Personally, I suspect that the classic pseudoanonymous forums are cooked. Within five years, they'll all be totally overrun by chatbots and their "value" will tank.

              The only recourse will be mobile-only "chat apps" that guarantee 100% human participation through specific hardware device and configuration attestation (TPMs, etc...), and also validating via the gyros that the device is moving appropriately for keypresses, etc...

              Everything else will be > 50% bots soon, overrun by propaganda, etc...

              Yes, I know, we're most of the way there already. Reddit and Twitter are already sinking into the swamp of sadness.

              But trust me, it can get worse than that! Much worse.

              • By zedlasso 2026-03-1020:14

                I am of the opinion that it will be like this until voice becomes the UI and the next interface for this type of thing will be guarded against fraud. Wag The Dog has become the standard and it's going to be this aspect of personal agency that will prevail. And solve the issue you are talking about.

              • By reactordev 2026-03-109:08

                What you are describing has been happening for 5 years already.

            • By peyton 2026-03-107:42

              Models read HN. Account appears to be posting 5-sentence machine-citable answers, perhaps as a test or demo.

            • By mrguyorama 2026-03-1015:54

              Well their account says "Founder, lover of all things agentic" so they are literally invested in AI being a thing.

          • By siva7 2026-03-105:151 reply

            A company like Oracle hasn't the workforce, the dna, to get this. It felt always as a really weird partner choice for a frontier ai lab

            • By reactordev 2026-03-109:10

              It’s because Oracle Cloud had a lot of unused capacity at the beginning. Because no one wanted to use Oracle Cloud. Cheap compute was hard to say no to.

          • By croes 2026-03-105:27

            > By the time Oracle's DCs are online with Blackwells, the models will want something different

            What they want and what they can get are different things. There will always be the tomorrow model they want

    • By apimade 2026-03-1011:10

      Likely aimed at classified/defence environments. In those spaces, hardware typically takes 18–36 months after commercial deployment before it’s approved—due to firmware vetting, side-channel analysis, crypto validation, and similar processes.

      Meanwhile, commercial operators have already deployed their hardware for public workloads. Existing Blackwell capacity won’t just be shifted into classified environments—governments don’t repurpose hardware from unclassified infrastructure for secret/TS systems. That deployed stock will stay in the private sector for hosted AI workloads.

      For many high-security use cases, new Blackwell systems may effectively be the only viable option, especially given the slow review cycles around new firmware and GPU software stacks. Newer chipsets will also be prioritized for training due to performance gains.

      Oracle likely recognizes this dynamic and is betting competitors may eventually need to deploy in their data centers. Governments haven’t historically deployed GPU capacity at this scale-beyond ASIC/FPGA crypto workloads.. and likely don’t have large pools of pristine Blackwell hardware available.

      They’re also purchasing late in the cycle, which may work in their favour.

    • By dchftcs 2026-03-100:282 reply

      5x improvement of energy efficiency in just GPUs translates to more like 50% reduction of power usage, with is significant but doesn't warrant a 80% reduction in pricing. Especially since Nvidia will charge more for the same card - they have been pricing things pretty aggressively.

      • By vessenes 2026-03-102:17

        And on the DC side they will be building to a power and heat budget. If Vera Rubin changes the power density per rack equation that may have some impact. But thinking rationally if the flops per kw-sq ft are lower than Blackwell, no problem. If they are a lot better then even if the kw per sq ft is higher you can just space the racks out a little

    • By rationably 2026-03-105:08

      While we have you here, could you please clarify a point in your privacy policy?

      > For data collected from the UI or other usage: We retain the personal information described in this privacy notice for as long as you use our Services

      I have two quick questions:

      1. Why are UI prompts and responses kept for the entire life of the account?

      2. When an account is closed, is the data actually deleted or just de-identified?

    • By DebtDeflation 2026-03-107:262 reply

      > Nvidia's "rack scale" machines like GB200-NVL72s and GB300-NVL72s are basically a fully built rack you roll into a DC and plug into power and network. In that case, Oracle should probably just buy the rack-scale Vera Rubins when they come out instead of Blackwells and roll them into their new DCs.

      This is what I don't understand. Why is the article making the assumption that the DC itself is tied to a particular GPU generation? AWS doesn't knock down a building and start over every time Intel releases a new Xeon.

      • By KeplerBoy 2026-03-108:031 reply

        Xeons have a much longer shelf life and diverse workloads. If you order hardware specifically for LLM inference and then some new hardware/model combination is much better at that (which it will be, because a lot of people are working on that), you might be in trouble.

        It's like setting up a warehouse of GPUs to mine bitcoin while others are switching to ASICs.

        • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-108:371 reply

          Training you mean. Doing inference on last year's chip is probably ok, but training a frontier model on it is going to be a deal breaker.

          • By KeplerBoy 2026-03-1012:471 reply

            No I mean inference. The idea is that inference demand will be massive and a race to the bottom with razor thin margins.

            Training costs can be amortized over the entire lifetime of the model, but if you lose money on inference or can't offer competitive usage limits for subscribers, there's no amortizing that.

            • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-117:031 reply

              No it's all about having the top model first and training time is what's crucial. OpenAI has already shown willingness to bleed money for the sake of brand and we can expect that to continue.

              • By KeplerBoy 2026-03-119:33

                OpenAI economics don't really work unless you happen to be OpenAI.

      • By trueismywork 2026-03-107:31

        Infiniband and coherent fabric.

    • By EvgeniyZh 2026-03-106:482 reply

      There are two generations and 4.5 years between A100 and B200.

      A100 has 312 TFLOPS of FP16 for 250W, i.e., 1.25 TFLOPS/W.

      B200 has 2250 TFLOPS of FP16 compute for 1000W, i.e., 2.25 TFLOPS/W.

      This is ~34% growth per generation and ~14% per year. It's hard to believe it will be 400% per generation this time

      • By KeplerBoy 2026-03-108:05

        It might be 400% in the one thing everyone is interested in.

      • By npn 2026-03-107:321 reply

        you think in FP16. nobody uses FP16 for inference anymore. 400% probably for FP4/INT4 computation.

        • By EvgeniyZh 2026-03-109:09

          Tensor core performance is inversely proportional to precision across all generations (i.e., reducing precision by a factor of 2 increases OPS by a factor of 2). 8-bit precision will give you the same improvement ratio. A100/H100 didn't support 4-bit if I remember correctly.

          So FP4/INT4 will likely improve the same 30% OPS/W. You could get a separate improvement by reducing precision, but going 1-bit for 4x improvement feels unlikely for now.

    • By Aerolfos 2026-03-1010:59

      > Or maybe construction of the physical DCs is behind schedule, so today's Blackwells are sitting around unused, waiting for power and networking tomorrow. Then they're in a bit of trouble.

      Other reporting says this is very much the case. Stargate barely has some of the land cleared, but the buildings were supposed to be finished and have GPUs installed over the course of 2026.

      There's also the indicator of Nvidia giving out billion-dollar deals to other companies such that they could commit to buying even more Blackwells to keep production going. The chips from those new deals don't have anywhere to go, everyone already spent their cash on getting shipped chips that they're still installing today (apparently some are even in warehouses)

    • By camillomiller 2026-03-101:14

      One could argue that the headline is correct then. Today is tomorrow’s yesterday.

    • By brainless 2026-03-107:00

      Hey Reiss, I just checked Synthetic. So nice to see indie providers for smaller LLMs. I am personally building products to run only with small (actually < 20b) models. My aim is for laptop usage. Would love to know what plans you have for models smaller than you have currently. Industrial use is all about smaller models IMHO

    • By ukuina 2026-03-104:04

      Thank you for Synthetic.new

      I moved over from OpenRouter and it's been breezy. I hope you are sustainable at $30/month and are successful!

    • By enopod_ 2026-03-108:59

      > The problem appears to be that Oracle is building today's DCs... Tomorrow.

      By the time Vera Rubins will be available on scale, will they immediately be put into DCs, or will tomorrows chips be running.. the day after tomorrow?

    • By OliverGuy 2026-03-1012:00

      Interested to know more about your inference start up? How you guys operating, do you own hardware or use the cloud?

    • By boredatoms 2026-03-1016:13

      The issue is really about if the DC is water-cooling capable

    • By croes 2026-03-105:29

      > Oracle should probably just buy the rack-scale Vera Rubins when they come out instead of Blackwells and roll them into their new DCs. Tada! Tomorrow's DCs, tomorrow.

      Or we‘ll get a supply problem and they get nothing or not enough. Tomorrow’s DC, never. Tada!

    • By peapicker 2026-03-103:09

      Supply chain at volume makes it hard to to little else.

    • By jxmesth 2026-03-1010:43

      I love how you explained this

    • By SecretDreams 2026-03-101:103 reply

      Isn't this a problem for everyone buying Nvidia GPUs at scale?

      • By dragonwriter 2026-03-105:04

        I think the difference is that the other hyperscalars are doing this out of the enormous cash rivers produced by their other profitable businesses, at a rate less than that at which profits are flowing in, whereas Oracle is funding it out of debt with AI capex in 2026 projected to reach levels nearly as high as their expected revenue (not profits) in the same period.

        If the hardware refresh rate makes a substantial share of data center cost function more like opex than capex, the companies funding it out of operations (especially from operations of what are essentially monopoly businesses, in the sense pricing power), even if it isn’t the operations it power specifically, are fine in the near-to-intemediate term (barring exogenous shocks to those other businesses), whereas Oracle, funding it by a debt bonanza, is in a different position.

      • By blinding-streak 2026-03-102:242 reply

        Google, Amazon, Meta, etc don't have to wait 12 or 24 months for their big data center to open. They already have lots of DCs to cram all the NVidia cards into, right now.

        • By cavisne 2026-03-102:572 reply

          Definitely not true. Meta is building tents for GPU's

          • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-108:522 reply

            > Meta is building tents for GPU's

            And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space. We are simultaneously living in the future and the past.

            • By hamburglar 2026-03-109:30

              > And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space.

              I highly doubt that. They claim they want to shoot them into space, but I don’t believe a word of it until I see it happen (and see it work). It’s no more real than hyperloop.

            • By mikkupikku 2026-03-1010:112 reply

              DCs in space is hype but actually makes no rational sense when you figure the size of radiators you'll need, and while solar cells are more efficient in space, they aren't that much better.

              • By ericd 2026-03-1013:21

                The Google paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468) didn’t seem too concerned with radiator mass/size when I skimmed it, but maybe I just missed it. My understanding is that if you run the chips relatively hot (and maybe boost with heat pumps? But then you’re not quite as solid state, and maintenance is tough up there), the radiation ability increases enough such that you can make the radiators slightly smaller than the solar panels, and they’d sit on the dark side of the panels. Many people like to point to the ISS system and scale that up, but there’s a big difference between a system assembled in space and meant to keep humans at human temps vs mass manufactured on the ground and keeping things around 100C.

              • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-1011:511 reply

                Well, the sun is always up in space, so yeah they're at least 3x better from that alone.

          • By Bombthecat 2026-03-1014:26

            Tents? Like.. where sleep in the woods in?..

        • By carefree-bob 2026-03-102:27

          I think it's less a matter of space and more a matter of power availability

      • By topspin 2026-03-103:03

        Only the ones that require profit from the GPUs.

    • By okasaki 2026-03-100:101 reply

      Next servers might need more power or different cooling. Then your DCs are just big concrete rooms.

      • By dboreham 2026-03-100:171 reply

        All DCs are big concrete rooms that can supply so much power per sq area and remove so much heat per sq area (the two related of course since the heat comes from dissipating the power). Variation is just in density of whatever sort of fancy resistor you plan to put in the concrete room.

        • By ithkuil 2026-03-108:37

          Thanks! "thinking resistors" will be the name of my future AI-punk band.

    • By clownpenis_fart 2026-03-1011:28

      [dead]

  • By mikelitoris 2026-03-0923:303 reply

    I hope the lawnmower goes bankrupt with this and the hostile WB take over.

    • By wilkystyle 2026-03-100:02

      Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.

    • By thefounder 2026-03-100:282 reply

      From the consumer perspective the last thing I want is a Netfli-xation of WB…

      • By dylan604 2026-03-100:511 reply

        I also don't want the next Bari Weiss in charge of WB

        • By abacadaba 2026-03-103:432 reply

          no of course not, but i have hope that she can fix cnn, fingers crossed

          • By linkregister 2026-03-103:52

            It was good, actually, that she suppressed accurate news unfavorable to the current President, tanking ratings and the network's credibility. I want more news outlets to decline. Except of course, my favorite, which doesn't count. It says it's fair and balanced; they wouldn't lie, would they?

          • By dev1ycan 2026-03-1011:291 reply

            I hope this is satire

      • By sofixa 2026-03-106:531 reply

        On the contrary, Netflix would have been decent because WB is bigger than them (in terms of IP, existing content, brands, etc) and would have probably (at least that's what they said publicly) left it mostly alone. And it's weird how people assume that just because Netflix produce a ton of content, all of it is low quality. A lot of it is for people half paying attention, but there is plenty of actually good stuff. Them having WB would improve them on both fronts.

        Nepo baby is coming with a political angle and wants control of the news media part of WB. The American media landscape is already without much competition nor diversity in political views, now there would practically be none.

        • By thefounder 2026-03-1020:251 reply

          The good Netflix movies are small diamonds in a swamp of garbage. Most of the content is the equivalent of fast food for movies with a political agenda.

          WB has not been immune to the political angle but they at least care about their IP and produce decent content. Of course Netflix would have used WB IP and Netflix’s “state of the art” movie making machine to maximise the value of the WB IP.

          TBH I don’t care about the WB news media part through I’m not sure if they will really destroy it just to align with their political views. If they make CNN like Fox News the viewers will just leave. The right move for Netflix from a shareholder’s perspective would be to get into the short drama movies that are popular in China and recently the US too. That would allow them to cover the whole garbage media spectrum and make a lot of money.

          • By sofixa 2026-03-1020:36

            > The good Netflix movies are small diamonds in a swamp of garbage. Most of the content is the equivalent of fast food for movies with a political agenda.

            What political agenda? Are gays existing in movies political for you or what do you mean?

            And again, Netflix have to play a numbers game. They need to have enough content for people not to leave them. That doesn't mean they don't also have genuine quality content like Better Call Saul, Peaky Blinders, Kaleidoscope, etc.

            > TBH I don’t care about the WB news media part through I’m not sure if they will really destroy it just to align with their political views

            They already started, appointing a political hack to be head of CBS, and CBS have already quickly turned very politically biased. Why wouldn't they do the same to CNN?

    • By bayarearefugee 2026-03-100:314 reply

      > I hope the lawnmower goes bankrupt with this and the hostile WB take over.

      Unfortunately there is no chance of that happening.

      At his level of personal wealth there is no realistic scenario that leads to personal bankruptcy. In our current capitalist society once you're into the billions you're "too big to fail" and you have unlocked the infinite money glitch.

      The only consolation is the lawnmower is 81 and thus is going to be dead soon (even the mega-wealthy can't plastic surgery themselves out of this outcome, at least not yet) and he can't take any of it with him. But all indications point to his progeny having aspirations to be even more damaging to society than he has been.

      • By yunnpp 2026-03-101:41

        > The only consolation is the lawnmower is 81 and thus is going to be dead soon

        Reminder to lay up your treasures in heaven.

      • By gruez 2026-03-100:335 reply

        > In our current capitalist society once you're into the billions you're "too big to fail" and you have unlocked the infinite money glitch.

        That's not how any of this works. "Too big to fail" can be applied to companies, but I don't know of any examples of it being applied to people.

        • By perfmode 2026-03-100:582 reply

          Thomas Piketty would love to have a word.

          Piketty’s central argument is that when the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds the rate of economic growth (g), wealth concentrates over time into fewer and fewer hands. This is his now-famous r > g inequality.

          The implication is that capitalism, left to its own devices, doesn’t naturally spread wealth around. It does the opposite. The relatively egalitarian period of the mid-20th century (roughly 1930s-1970s) was the historical exception, driven by two world wars, the Great Depression, and deliberate policy choices like progressive taxation. The longer historical pattern, which Piketty traces with extensive data going back to the 18th century, is one of increasing concentration.

          His practical prescription is a global progressive tax on wealth (not just income) to counteract this tendency. He acknowledges this is politically difficult but argues it’s the most straightforward mechanism to prevent a return to the kind of patrimonial capitalism that defined the Gilded Age and the Belle Époque, where inherited wealth dominated and social mobility was minimal.

          The book’s real contribution was less the theoretical claim (which economists had gestured at before) and more the empirical work. Piketty and his collaborators assembled an unprecedented dataset on wealth and income distribution across multiple countries and centuries, which gave the argument a weight that prior discussions lacked.

          • By kortilla 2026-03-102:302 reply

            None of that applies to individually wealthy people, who have a long history of going bankrupt.

            • By fzeroracer 2026-03-103:351 reply

              Which ones? The Sacklers are a prime example of how impossible it is to actually go bankrupt; considering they harmed millions of people, had the government step in and still remain one of the wealthiest families in the US.

            • By overfeed 2026-03-102:481 reply

              Who was the last billionaire that went bankrupt, involuntarily?

              • By linkregister 2026-03-103:432 reply

                this is so trivial to find that the first web search hits are pop news listicles. Here's the first result.

                https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-billionaires-went-broke-15...

                • By jiggawatts 2026-03-107:011 reply

                  "Filed for bankruptcy" != "out of money" in the ordinary plebeian sense.

                  These are the kind of criminals where the judges will let them stay under home arrest in their twenty-bedroom mansion, have their chauffeur drive them around in a car worth more than my entire life savings, etc... because it would be "unconscionable" for them to lose the life that they're accustomed to. I.e.: Affluenza.

                  Just look at Prince Andrew or whatever he's called now. He raped children and his rightful punishment would be to sit in a jail cell with no access to anything even resembling his lavish digs, instead he's luxuriating in a lifestyle you and I would envy.

                  I can list far, far more examples of billionaires or mere hundred-millionaires living luxuriously after committing capital crimes or "going bankrupt" than not.

                  Find me an ex-billionaire living out of a motor home, then I'll cede your point.

                  • By antonvs 2026-03-1014:13

                    > These are the kind of criminals where the judges will let them stay under home arrest in their twenty-bedroom mansion…

                    Another egregious example of this sort of thing:

                    > Robert H. Richards IV was convicted of rape, the wealthy heir to the Du Pont family fortune […] received an eight-year prison sentence in 2009 for raping his toddler daughter, but the sentencing order signed by a Delaware judge said “defendant will not fare well” in prison and the eight years were suspended.

                    https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape...

                    Talk about a two-tier justice system.

                • By overfeed 2026-03-104:151 reply

                  On the list: people who were convicted of crimes[1], and were barely billionaires (not worth tens or hundreds of billions).

                  1. Against rich/powerful people

                  • By linkregister 2026-03-104:231 reply

                    The definition of a billionaire is someone with a net worth exceeding one billion dollars.

                    • By overfeed 2026-03-106:15

                      I am aware; "barely" is exclusively used to describe items that surpass the threshold.

                      I don't even know thr point you're arguing as the intro to the listicle concurs with my main argument:

                      >> It is very rare for a person to achieve the status of billionaire and then lose it.

          • By gruez 2026-03-101:042 reply

            >The book’s real contribution was less the theoretical claim (which economists had gestured at before) and more the empirical work.

            Empirical work... like conveniently ignoring the fact that there's far less old money billionaires than we'd expect?

            >For these lucky people, the experience of the Vanderbilts and their contemporaries offers a cautionary tale. At the turn of the 20th century, America’s census recorded about 4,000 millionaires, note Victor Haghani and James White, two wealth managers, in their book, “The Missing Billionaires”. Suppose a quarter of them had at least $5m (the richest had hundreds) and had invested it in America’s stockmarket. Had they then procreated at the average rate, paid their taxes and spent 2% of their capital each year, their descendants today would include nearly 16,000 old-money billionaires. In reality, it is a struggle to find a single one who traces their fortune back to the first Gilded Age.

            https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/06/12/h...

            • By jrflowers 2026-03-105:06

              > In reality, it is a struggle to find a single one who traces their fortune back to the first Gilded Age.

              This is a good point because there are no oil billionaires and things like trusts, family offices, offshoring etc. actually pose no challenge to accurately numerating and identifying people that ‘have’ or effectively control over a billion dollars at their discretion because they all just sign up for the list.

              Of course there’s the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers but that doesn

            • By camillomiller 2026-03-101:18

              [flagged]

        • By cogman10 2026-03-101:022 reply

          There's 100+ people the FBI had tabs on for sex trafficking related to Epstein.

          So far the only individual that has been meaningfully punished has been Ghislaine Maxwell.

          This seems like a prime example of being too big to fail. The FBI puts on kid gloves whenever a rich person is accused of wrong doing.

          • By gruez 2026-03-101:051 reply

            >There's 100+ people the FBI had tabs on for sex trafficking related to Epstein.

            >So far the only individual that has been meaningfully punished has been Ghislaine Maxwell.

            That factoid is meaningless without the rate of prosecutions/convictions for people that FBI "had tabs on".

            • By cogman10 2026-03-101:133 reply

              What rate are you looking for?

              With J6, in the matter of 2 or so years the FBI has secured over 1000 convictions.

              When it wants to, the FBI can move very quickly.

              • By TurdF3rguson 2026-03-101:512 reply

                They also had all those guys on camera doing crimes in Washington DC and bragging about it on Twitter.

                • By watwut 2026-03-108:111 reply

                  FBI was literally sitting on Epstein files for years. They have chosen not to prosecute. When the state tried to investigate Epstein, FBI came in, took control over with claim they will share investigation results ... and then did nothing.

                  • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-108:221 reply

                    I seem to remember him dying in a jail cell?

                    • By watwut 2026-03-1010:511 reply

                      Yes, which happened only because a journalist broke a story about how FBI was not investigating Epstein for years and years. It was media who forced that to happen, after decades of abuse FBI was aware of.

                      Speaking of which, the previous conviction, the super sweet deal Acosta gave to Epstein before is also an example of elite unaccountability.

                      FBI and friends protected Epstein until it became impossible.

                      • By trick-or-treat 2026-03-1011:49

                        Ok but can't you say that about most non-street-level convictions? That they required some amount of complaining for a detective to do their job?

                • By threwawew 2026-03-103:27

                  What do you think Epstein was doing, if not recording people on cameras?

              • By ternaryoperator 2026-03-101:25

                J6 is not a strong counterexample, IMHO. Part of the problem with Epstein is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," for which evidence is needed--and, it appears, hard to come by. Whereas with J6, there were thousands of hours of footage showing the crimes being committed (and in many cases bragged about), which made prosecutions much easier.

              • By gruez 2026-03-101:29

                >With J6, in the matter of 2 or so years the FBI has secured over 1000 convictions.

                Again, large numbers, but no context. How many people did you think were at the riots? 10k? 50k?

                Moreover, Jan 6th was an event that definitely happened. The same can't be said for whatever happened at Epstein's island. The island exists, Epstein's a convicted sex offender, and people flew there, but associating with sex offenders isn't a crime, no matter how despicable it might seem.

          • By mikkupikku 2026-03-1010:172 reply

            It's sexism in action; the woman gets punished while "boys will be boys." Prove me wrong. Epstein himself is probably still alive in Tel Aviv anyway.

            • By azan_ 2026-03-1010:37

              > It's sexism in action; the woman gets punished while "boys will be boys." Prove me wrong.

              Epstein died in his cell. If Maxwell preferred death to punishment she could've also killed herself. Also it's well documented that women receive less harsh punishment in court vs men for the same crimes, so yeah, it's sexism but not in the way you insinuate.

              > Epstein himself is probably still alive in Tel Aviv anyway.

              Yes, and it's Maxwell's lookalike that's serving the sentence, while she's enjoying herself in Argentina. See how quickly you can derails discussion with such absurd claims without any substance?

            • By cindyllm 2026-03-1010:52

              [dead]

        • By blitzar 2026-03-1010:41

          The "all in podcast"

        • By bayarearefugee 2026-03-100:393 reply

          Please provide a list of all multi-billionaires who have somehow managed to lose any significant portion of their wealth outside of a divorce combined with bad marriage planning. And even in those rare cases, they don't approach bankruptcy.

          It isn't that they get bailed out by the government (like the banks in 2008), it is that at the scale of their wealth there is no realistic way to lose it fast enough to make any significant negative difference when the neutral state of wealth at that scale is to snowball ever larger (mostly because we refuse to tax it appropriately).

      • By Aurornis 2026-03-101:162 reply

        > At his level of personal wealth there is no realistic scenario that leads to personal bankruptcy. In our current capitalist society once you're into the billions you're "too big to fail" and you have unlocked the infinite money glitch.

        This is plainly false. There are plenty of example, even recently, of billionaires losing their fortunes or going bankrupt. Often they come with criminal prosecution because they get desperate and try illegal ways to hang on to their wealth. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, and several other examples come to mind.

        There are a lot of stories of billionaires getting too risky with their investments or too concentrated in businesses and losing the majority of their wealth. The Barclay story, Jim Justice, the old Peloton CEO.

        It’s not a common outcome because you have to try hard to screw up that badly when you have over a billion dollars in wealth. Parking it anywhere in common investments would leave you and your ancestors set forever.

        • By dragonwriter 2026-03-101:32

          > There are plenty of example, even recently, of billionaires losing their fortunes

          Billionaires aren't on the same level of wealth as hectobillionaires, just like decamillionaires aren't on the same level of wealth as billionaires.

        • By bayarearefugee 2026-03-101:25

          > Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes, and several other examples come to mind.

          Billionaires that were dumb enough to attempt to screw even bigger billionaires. Sure you can find exceptions to the rules, but Ellison isn't going to be one of those.

      • By fragmede 2026-03-105:023 reply

        > The only consolation is the lawnmower is 81 and thus is going to be dead soon (even the mega-wealthy can't plastic surgery themselves out of this outcome, at least not yet)

        Haven't been following Bryan Johnson, eh?

        • By mikkupikku 2026-03-1010:20

          Not only will he die, he is obsessed with his mortality and thinks about death every day. That's no way to spend your life. He's a massive fool.

        • By bayarearefugee 2026-03-105:30

          > Haven't been following Bryan Johnson, eh?

          he's gonna die just like the rest of us, just with a slightly odder uncanny valley look for himself when he goes.

        • By mi_lk 2026-03-107:35

          Willing to bet good money he won’t outlive someone’s grandpa who smokes two times a day

  • By wmf 2026-03-0922:192 reply

    I don't believe that Stargate is "yesterday's data center". It's being built in multiple phases and Oracle has access to Nvidia's roadmap. They know 200 kW/rack is coming. The newer phases could easily be built out to support Rubin and Feynman.

    • By HolyLampshade 2026-03-0923:254 reply

      200 kW/rack is absolutely insane to me. The power consumption of these facilities is just...ridiculous.

      • By ineedasername 2026-03-100:021 reply

        With respect to consumption, it’s pretty efficient vs older traditional servers, though I know workloads like that aren’t completely fungible. Nonetheless it bears keeping in mind that a single GB200 NVL72 rack provides 1.4 ExaFLOPS of AI compute (at FP4 precision, ideal circumstances, but this is envelope math all around). So it’s power efficient, for what it is.

        • By HolyLampshade 2026-03-100:171 reply

          Oh, I have no doubt it is functionally efficient. I'm just amazed given the system deployments I've been party to, and the tiny amount of per rack energy usage comparatively speaking given the functionality of those systems.

          Like, what in the good god damn are we using all this energy for?

          • By bayarearefugee 2026-03-100:522 reply

            > Like, what in the good god damn are we using all this energy for?

            Bad AI porn, terrible AI music, AI scams and completely devastating the labor market.

            And based on the recent Anthropic/Pentagon rift... I guess also creating autonomous kill-bots and doing mass surveillance.

            Just a bunch of super cool stuff.

            • By speed_spread 2026-03-102:04

              You left out overthrowing governments with customized targeted propaganda, jamming citizen discussion with noise, artificially creating and nourishing contrarian cells in democratic societies. The machines will now be programming people.

            • By 71bw 2026-03-1011:09

              >and completely devastating the labor market.

              ? lol

      • By Bombthecat 2026-03-0923:381 reply

        Since you and me and everyone else will foot the elecricy bill. Energy consumption or efficiency is not a concern.

        • By dylan604 2026-03-100:532 reply

          It's the water use that concerns me

          • By keeda 2026-03-1019:45

          • By speed_spread 2026-03-102:073 reply

            In theory the water stays clean and can be reused. But I assume these cheapskates will go for evaporative cooling everytime? Then yeah, we need laws against that.

            • By fc417fc802 2026-03-106:501 reply

              I guess when you're dissipating upwards of a gigawatt of power at a single site boiling water starts to look attractive. It's a pretty impressive curveball; I definitely would never have predicted "an evil corporation boils off all the local drinking water" to be a legitimate concern. I'm pretty sure that's too absurd a plot point for even a children's movie.

              • By Imustaskforhelp 2026-03-109:44

                > an evil corporation boils off all the local drinking water

                Nestle jumps into my mind whenever I want to think of an evil corporation and water together.

            • By carlosft 2026-03-105:321 reply

              I keep hearing people claiming that water is just as much as issue as energy for operating these DCs, but that just doesn't make any sense to me. However, I haven't had to step inside a DC for almost two decades.

              • By fc417fc802 2026-03-107:043 reply

                Continuously dissipating 1 gigawatt of energy by boiling room temperature water would require approximately 1.38 million liters of water per hour.

                Seems like the environmentally responsible thing to do be to build the datacenter near the coast and use the waste heat to desalinate water. Or at least dissipate the heat into the ocean rather than boiling off an inland freshwater supply.

                • By dylan604 2026-03-108:551 reply

                  And kill the local aquatic life as you raise the temp beyond their happy place?

                  • By fc417fc802 2026-03-109:50

                    Setting aside a small patch of ocean for the task seems like a much better plan than the current practice. Provided you dump it in a place with a decent current any adversely affected area should be exceedingly small.

                    Keep in mind that the sun is constantly dumping energy on us. Absorption averaged across the entire earth is ~200 W/m^2. Assuming I didn't misplace some zeros somewhere then a gigawatt corresponds to ~5 km^2 of ocean surface. That's the daily flux. Penetration falls off exponentially so 75% of that only ever makes it ~10 m down.

                    I think the takeaway here is the utterly incomprehensible scale of the ocean.

                • By blitzar 2026-03-1010:43

                  run it through a turbine and generate electricity to power the datacenter - infinite energy and infinite ai unlocked.

                • By Imustaskforhelp 2026-03-109:54

                  This idea is probably more worth it in middle eastern countries given that 90% of their water comes from Desalination Plants. But given the recent war within region, I don't really expect Datacenters to be built within the region for quite a long time.

            • By Rapzid 2026-03-1016:56

              Yeah because it's cheaper they go evaporative. That's an easy fix by just making it more expensive.

              People talk about the water usage like it's an intrinsic feature of datacenters; it's not. You just make it more expensive so they are forced to conserve. But you wait till you have to so you don't push them to build elsewhere.

      • By Aurornis 2026-03-101:191 reply

        The compute power is also ridiculous.

        Some of the reason for the high density is that you need devices physically close to each other to share such bandwidth. It’s not because we’re limited by the physical building space, because we can construct buildings all day long. Sending bits around at ultra high speed is hard and you need to keep all of the devices physically close to avoid having your interconnect costs explode.

        • By HolyLampshade 2026-03-102:04

          Interestingly the realm in which I have domain experience has similar constraints, but based primarily on physical transport latency and less on bandwidth. There has been a move in some spaces towards hyper-dense deployments, but it’s a very small amount of the total compute capacity due to other limitations.

          Still, the world I’m used to operating in is typically 5-10 kVA/rack.

      • By ehnto 2026-03-102:49

        There are box trucks with less power consumption.

    • By harry8 2026-03-0922:325 reply

      So what's the theory that goes with this about why cnbc are reporting that openai are walking because they want newer nvidia hardware? CNBC are clueleess? People at openai are lying to cnbc? cnbc are fabricating stories while drunk?

      There has to be some theory to explain the story to be consistent with this comment.

      • By wmf 2026-03-0922:38

        Something is probably happening but I don't know what it is. Maybe this is really a negotiation over price.

      • By collabs 2026-03-0922:39

        I agree with you more than I agree with the parent comment.

        To use the hit HBO TV show silicon valley analogy, it is far more likely that "the bear is sticky with honey" will happen at Oracle than at Open AI. Some kind of game of telephone gone wrong at some point and now the people responsible at Oracle must double down in order to kick the can to the next quarter and not appear clueless.

        Statutory disclaimer: I am not affiliated with either Open AI or Oracle and have no insider information. All of this is mere conjecture and has no basis in reality.

      • By cyanydeez 2026-03-0922:571 reply

        OpenAI is a unreliable narrator as long as Sam is in charge. Full stop. EM_DASH.

        • By reilly3000 2026-03-0923:221 reply

          Yes and CNBC is comically rife with payola content. I just want to know who’s buying.

          • By tiahura 2026-03-100:16

            Diedra is a solid reporter with pretty good access and understanding.

      • By leptons 2026-03-0923:361 reply

        >cnbc are fabricating stories while drunk?

        Don't forget the possibility that it's AI slop.

        • By tiahura 2026-03-100:18

          Diedra Bosa is a good journalist.

      • By TacticalCoder 2026-03-0922:44

        > CNBC are clueleess?

        That sounds about right.

        > People at openai are lying to cnbc?

        Remove "to cnbc" and that's a yes.

        > cnbc are fabricating stories while drunk?

        Maybe not drunk but likely high.

HackerNews