DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog

Greg Abel Signals Berkshire Is Embracing AI, but in a Very Different Way From Silicon Valley

0

Greg Abel is stepping into one of the most difficult succession jobs in corporate America: running Berkshire Hathaway after Warren Buffett.

Since taking over as chief executive at the start of 2026, Abel has largely allowed Berkshire’s investment decisions to speak for themselves. But in a wide-ranging CNBC interview on Wednesday, he offered a clearer picture of how the company intends to navigate an economy increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, while preserving the long-term, operating-focused philosophy that defined Buffett’s tenure.

The message is that Berkshire is not sitting out the AI boom. It is simply approaching it from a different angle.

Rather than attempting to identify the next breakthrough model or speculate on which AI company will dominate, Berkshire is positioning itself around the infrastructure that AI companies will need to operate, particularly electricity. That represents an important evolution for a company whose reputation was built on investments in insurance, railroads, energy, industrial businesses and consumer brands rather than high-growth technology.

Berkshire’s roughly $38 billion investment in Alphabet is the clearest indication that the company is willing to make a major direct bet on AI.

Abel confirmed that Berkshire began accumulating Alphabet shares last year, saying the company came to Berkshire’s attention partly because AI was already proving useful within Berkshire’s own operating businesses.

The Alphabet investment is spectacular not simply because of its size, but because it suggests Berkshire no longer views AI as a speculative technology theme that sits outside its traditional investment framework.

The more revealing part of Abel’s comments, however, was his focus on electricity.

For Berkshire, the next constraint on AI may not be chips or models but the ability to generate and deliver enough power to support the enormous data centers being built by hyperscalers. That gives Berkshire an unusual position in the AI infrastructure race. Through its energy operations, the company owns utilities serving Iowa, Nevada, and large parts of the western United States. Those businesses are directly exposed to the surge in electricity demand created by data centers.

Berkshire’s Iowa utility already obtains roughly 8% of its electricity load from data centers, giving the company an existing foothold in a market that could expand rapidly as AI developers increase computing capacity. This is where Berkshire’s traditional operating philosophy becomes particularly relevant. The company does not need to predict which AI model will win. If AI companies continue expanding data-center capacity, they will require electricity regardless of whether the eventual winner is OpenAI, Google, Anthropic or another developer.

In that sense, Berkshire is attempting to capture the infrastructure spending behind the AI boom rather than betting exclusively on the technology at its center.

But Abel’s comments also highlighted the limits of that opportunity.

Berkshire will serve new data centers only if doing so does not increase electricity costs for its existing customers. That condition is relevant because the AI infrastructure buildout is becoming a political and regulatory issue as well as a technology investment story. Data centers can require enormous amounts of electricity, forcing utilities to invest in generation, transmission, and grid infrastructure. The question therefore is who pays for those investments and whether existing households and businesses should bear part of the cost.

Berkshire’s position suggests the company sees the demand opportunity but recognizes that utilities cannot simply redirect scarce power toward hyperscalers without considering affordability and reliability for existing customers.

That could become one of the biggest constraints on the next phase of the AI boom.

The semiconductor industry has spent years worrying about whether there will be enough advanced chips to satisfy AI demand. The next bottleneck may sit further downstream: electricity generation, transmission capacity, data-center construction and regulatory approvals.

AI developers can order more GPUs, but they cannot instantly build power plants or transmission lines. That makes electricity potentially one of the most strategically valuable assets in the AI supply chain.

However, it is also a familiar business for Berkshire. Unlike a technology investor, the company can potentially participate in the expansion by owning and operating physical infrastructure that generates long-term cash flows. The strategy also fits Berkshire’s preference for businesses where management can exercise direct operational control rather than simply owning financial stakes.

Still, Berkshire enters this new era from a position of relative underperformance. Its shares have barely moved this year and have lagged the S&P 500 by more than 10 percentage points as the market’s AI-driven rally has rewarded technology and growth stocks. But some analysts believe that it creates pressure for Abel, although it is unlikely to change Berkshire’s fundamental investment philosophy.

The challenge is that Berkshire’s enormous cash holdings and concentration in traditional businesses can look unattractive when investors are aggressively rewarding companies exposed to AI.

Abel’s response appears to be less about transforming Berkshire into a technology company and more about finding where the AI boom intersects with businesses Berkshire already understands.

That approach extends beyond technology and energy. Abel said consumers remain under pressure from inflation and high mortgage rates, while the housing market faces a “bumpy road” without an immediate recovery.

Yet Berkshire recently bought homebuilder Taylor Morrison, indicating that it is willing to invest in industries experiencing near-term weakness when it believes the long-term economics remain attractive.

Abel expects Taylor Morrison to become a “very strong asset” over five to 10 years, noting that the underlying demand for homeownership will remain even if high housing costs are preventing many Americans from buying homes today.

That investment offers another clue about how Abel intends to run Berkshire.

The company does not necessarily need the economy to be strong everywhere at the same time. It can deploy capital into sectors where temporary weakness creates attractive long-term opportunities, while allowing its operating companies to benefit when conditions improve. The result is a Berkshire that is gradually becoming more exposed to the forces driving the modern economy without abandoning the principles that made it successful.

Alphabet gives Berkshire direct exposure to AI. Its utilities provide exposure to the electricity required to run AI infrastructure. Taylor Morrison provides exposure to a long-term housing shortage. And its traditional businesses continue generating the cash needed to fund those investments.

That may ultimately prove to be Abel’s biggest test.

Buffett built Berkshire around patience, capital allocation and the ability to look beyond short-term market enthusiasm. Abel now has to apply those principles to an economy in which technological change is occurring at extraordinary speed.

His answer so far is not to chase the AI trade.

It is to identify what the AI boom will need next, invest in those physical and economic bottlenecks, and wait for the demand to translate into durable cash flows.

Bitcoin ETFs Attract Capital as Snowflake’s AI Boom Lifts Tech Stocks

0

Financial markets are delivering a mixed but revealing signal as capital continues to rotate between digital assets and artificial intelligence. U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded approximately $101 million in net inflows.

While spot Ether ETFs experienced about $48 million in net outflows. Snowflake shares surged more than 22% after the data-cloud company delivered stronger-than-expected earnings, highlighting how aggressively investors are rewarding businesses positioned to benefit from accelerating AI adoption.

The contrasting ETF flows illustrate a growing divergence within the cryptocurrency investment landscape. Bitcoin continues to attract institutional demand even as Ether experiences short-term selling pressure.

The $101 million inflow into spot Bitcoin ETFs suggests investors remain willing to use regulated investment products to gain exposure to BTC, particularly as expectations around monetary policy, liquidity and broader risk appetite continue to influence markets.

Ether’s $48 million outflow, indicates that institutional appetite is not moving uniformly across crypto assets. Investors may be reassessing individual narratives, valuations and near-term catalysts rather than treating the digital-asset market as a single trade.

The divergence is important because Ethereum has traditionally benefited from its position at the center of decentralized finance, stablecoins and tokenized assets.  Yet ETF flows show that Bitcoin can attract defensive or macro-driven capital even when enthusiasm toward other digital assets cools.

The stock market offered a different example of capital chasing growth. Snowflake’s more than 22% surge demonstrates the premium investors are placing on companies capable of converting AI demand into measurable commercial growth.

Snowflake operates at the intersection of cloud computing, enterprise data and artificial intelligence, making its performance a useful indicator of how businesses are adapting to the AI-driven economy.

The sharp rally following its earnings report suggests investors were not simply looking for revenue growth. They were looking for evidence that AI spending is translating into stronger demand for infrastructure, data management and enterprise software.

As companies deploy increasingly sophisticated AI systems, access to high-quality data and scalable cloud infrastructure becomes a critical requirement. This creates an important connection between the crypto and technology markets. Both are increasingly being driven by expectations of future infrastructure demand.

Bitcoin represents a bet on digital scarcity and an alternative financial network, while companies such as Snowflake represent bets on the infrastructure required to process and exploit enormous quantities of data.mStill, the flows also reveal that investors remain selective.

Bitcoin’s positive ETF flows alongside Ether’s negative flows show that institutional conviction can vary significantly even within crypto. Snowflake’s explosive rally similarly demonstrates that investors are willing to reward specific companies when earnings validate an AI growth narrative.

The broader market therefore appears less concerned with simply owning risk assets and more focused on identifying where the strongest structural growth is emerging. Bitcoin is benefiting from continued institutional acceptance.

While AI-focused technology companies are benefiting from enormous corporate investment.mThe key question is whether these trends can persist. If Bitcoin ETF demand remains strong and AI companies continue translating spending into earnings, both narratives could reinforce broader risk appetite.

But if valuations outrun fundamentals or macroeconomic conditions tighten, the same capital could reverse quickly. The message is clear: investors are still deploying capital, but they are becoming increasingly selective about where they believe the next phase of growth will come from.

Anthropic Accuses Chinese AI Labs of Using Fraudulent Accounts to Distill Claude Models

0

Anthropic has accused Chinese artificial intelligence companies and other foreign actors of using large-scale networks of fraudulent accounts to extract capabilities from its Claude models and build cheaper competing systems, escalating a broader battle over AI model distillation, intellectual property and national security.

Jacob Klein, Anthropic’s head of threat intelligence, said the company supports legitimate competition but has identified what it describes as an illicit ecosystem designed to circumvent its safeguards and obtain access to Claude at enormous scale.

“There’s an entire illicit ecosystem to try to gain access to Claude and other models,” Klein told CNBC. “This ecosystem goes through any means necessary to evade our controls, so they can spin up accounts at extreme scale.”

Anthropic alleges that foreign AI developers can then repeatedly query Claude, collect millions of responses, and use those outputs to train their own models. The process, known as distillation, can substantially reduce the cost and time required to develop competing AI systems because a developer can learn from the behavior of an already capable model rather than building every capability from scratch.

The practice itself is not inherently illegal. Model developers can use distillation legitimately when they have permission to access and use another system’s outputs and comply with intellectual-property, contractual, and export-control requirements.

Anthropic’s allegation is that some actors are deliberately bypassing those restrictions.

Anthropic has singled out several Chinese AI laboratories, including Moonshot AI, DeepSeek and MiniMax, alleging that they have distilled capabilities from its frontier models.

Klein specifically accused Moonshot’s Kimi K3 model, which gained significant attention after its launch in July, of being trained illegally using the latest version of Claude.

“We’ve seen a fair amount of this from China,” Klein said. “This is something that the industry writ large is dealing with.”

Kimi K3 has attracted adoption in Silicon Valley partly because of its lower cost and the ability for businesses to customize the model more easily. If Anthropic’s allegations are substantiated, the episode would illustrate the competitive advantage that can be gained by extracting capabilities from a more expensive frontier model and subsequently offering them at a lower price.

Anthropic has also accused Alibaba, the developer of the Qwen family of AI models, of conducting what it described as a large-scale “distillation attack” against Claude.

Anthropic is not alone in raising concerns. OpenAI and Google have separately published research and reports about model distillation and have said they are taking measures to prevent unauthorized extraction of their models’ capabilities.

The issue is gaining broader attention as the performance gap between frontier models and cheaper competitors narrows. Distillation can allow developers with significantly smaller budgets to reproduce particular capabilities without incurring the same level of training expenditure as the original model developer. But that creates a difficult commercial equation for frontier AI companies. Billions of dollars can be spent developing a highly capable model, only for competitors to potentially extract useful behaviors through repeated interactions and incorporate them into cheaper systems.

Fake Accounts Create An Enforcement Problem

According to Klein, the problem extends beyond conventional account abuse.

He said some foreign actors are creating tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands, of fraudulent accounts to access Anthropic’s services and generate enormous volumes of model responses. The accounts can allegedly be created using stolen payment-card information, compromised infrastructure, and other illicit resources, including marketplaces operating on the dark web.

Once inside Anthropic’s systems, an attacker can issue large numbers of queries and collect Claude’s responses. Those responses can subsequently become training material for another model, effectively turning Anthropic’s commercial AI service into a source of data for a competing system.

The scale makes detection difficult.

A normal user might make dozens of queries. A distillation operation could generate thousands or millions of interactions, potentially distributed across a vast number of accounts so that the activity resembles legitimate usage.

“It’s very hard to fully stop this as a problem, but I think slowing it down is good and worthwhile,” Klein said.

Travis Lanham, technology chief at cybersecurity firm Armadin and a former Google engineer, said the enormous volume of traffic handled by major AI companies makes sophisticated abuse difficult to isolate.

“These companies are serving billions of requests,” Lanham said. “The millions are relatively small compared to everything and it’s just sneaking in and trying to look like the rest of the crowd.”

The development has created a classic security problem for AI providers because aggressive controls can reduce abuse but can also make legitimate services more difficult for ordinary customers to access.

The National-Security Dimension

Anthropic’s concerns extend beyond commercial competition.

Klein said unauthorized access could allow actors that would otherwise have limited access to advanced AI systems to acquire capabilities they could use for surveillance, cyber operations, or potentially biological-weapons development.

He also pointed to what he described as a specific campaign by a China-based entity that used Anthropic’s technology for espionage at scale.

“There is a national security concern at play if malicious actors, bad actors who we don’t trust are gaining access to more capable models than they could have otherwise through the act of distillation,” Klein said.

The argument adds another layer to Washington’s increasingly contentious debate over advanced AI exports and access to frontier models. The Trump administration said in an April policy memorandum that distillation that undermines American research and proprietary information was “unacceptable” and said it would explore measures to hold foreign actors accountable.

The issue is particularly sensitive because the United States is simultaneously trying to maintain its lead in frontier AI while preventing advanced technology from reaching foreign actors that Washington considers security risks.

Thus, distillation is becoming one of the less visible but potentially consequential fronts in the global AI competition.

Training a frontier model requires enormous quantities of computing power, specialized chips, data, and engineering talent. Distillation can change the economics by allowing a smaller developer to learn from an existing model’s responses rather than independently reproducing the entire development process.

That does not necessarily mean a distilled model will replicate the original model’s full capabilities. The student model may reproduce specific reasoning patterns, coding abilities, or domain expertise while lacking other characteristics of the teacher model.

But even partial capability transfer can be commercially significant when the resulting system is cheaper, easier to customize, or subject to fewer restrictions. This creates an unusual incentive structure for frontier AI companies. Their models must be accessible enough to generate revenue and support developers, but every additional interaction can potentially provide information that a competitor could use to improve its own system.

Anthropic’s position is therefore not that competition itself is the problem.

“I think competition is great,” Klein said. “The concern here is if you are taking our model, distilling it through fraudulent means, creating millions of fake accounts using stolen credit cards and stolen infrastructure, to then produce a model that doesn’t have safeguards in place.”

Industry analysts expect that situation to become increasingly necessary as AI companies, regulators and governments attempt to establish where legitimate model development ends and unauthorized capability extraction begins.

Nvidia, Oil and Geopolitics Put Investors on a Market Knife Edge

0

The final week of August delivered a sharp reminder that modern financial markets rarely wait for the official opening bell before repricing risk.

Nvidia’s earnings, oil-market tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, and shifting expectations across equities and commodities demonstrated how quickly information can move from headlines into asset prices.

Nvidia’s after-close earnings report was the first major catalyst. The company’s results were closely watched because of its central position in the artificial-intelligence investment boom.

Investors were not simply assessing quarterly revenue and profits; they were trying to determine whether the extraordinary spending on AI infrastructure could continue supporting the valuations of technology companies.

The market’s response was immediate. Nvidia shares moved 7.4% the following morning, illustrating the scale of expectations embedded in the stock. Such a move is more than a reaction to earnings figures.

It represents a rapid reassessment of future growth, semiconductor demand, data-center investment and the broader AI trade. For markets, Nvidia has increasingly become a proxy for something much larger.

Its performance influences sentiment across chipmakers, cloud companies, software firms and even major equity indexes. When Nvidia delivers, investors can interpret that as evidence that the AI capital-spending cycle remains intact.

When expectations are challenged, the consequences can spread rapidly across risk assets. But the week’s repricing did not stop with technology stocks. Days later, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz introduced a completely different source of uncertainty: energy security.

Sunday’s escalation near the critical shipping corridor pushed Brent crude higher before regular trading reopened. Again, the important point was not simply the direction of oil prices. It was the speed with which geopolitical risk became a market variable.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. Any threat to shipping through the region can immediately raise concerns about supply disruptions, transportation costs and inflation.

Higher crude prices can eventually feed into gasoline, logistics, manufacturing and consumer prices, complicating the outlook for central banks that are already balancing inflation against economic growth.

By the time conventional markets reopened, traders were not starting from a neutral position. Prices had already begun incorporating the information through overnight and weekend trading mechanisms.

The repricing was underway before many investors had the opportunity to react through traditional market sessions. This sequence reveals an increasingly important characteristic of global markets: risk is now continuous.

Earnings arrive outside regular trading hours. Geopolitical developments emerge during weekends. Cryptocurrency markets trade around the clock, providing an early indication of how investors are responding to new information.

Futures markets and international exchanges can also absorb shocks long before domestic equity markets reopen. The result is a market environment in which the opening price can sometimes reflect hours of accumulated information rather than a fresh beginning.

The final week of August therefore offered two contrasting catalysts with a similar consequence. Nvidia demonstrated how corporate earnings and AI expectations can rapidly reshape equity valuations.

Hormuz tensions showed how geopolitical developments can alter the inflation and energy outlook almost instantly. They highlighted a broader reality: investors are no longer pricing yesterday’s world. They are continuously attempting to price tomorrow’s risks.

By the time the trading session officially begins, much of the adjustment may already have happened.

India’s 7.8% Growth Triggers Debate Over Whether Economy Is Stronger Than Data Suggest

0

India’s unexpectedly strong economic growth has triggered a debate over the reliability of the country’s newly revised GDP data, with a former senior finance ministry official and an ex-central bank governor questioning whether the headline expansion overstates underlying momentum.

India’s economy grew 7.8% in the three months through June from a year earlier, government data showed on Monday, significantly exceeding the 7.1% median forecast in a Reuters poll. The expansion was supported by an investment boom and strong manufacturing activity, alongside resilient consumer demand.

The reading has nevertheless raised questions over how much of the acceleration reflects genuine economic strength and how much is the result of changes to the way India calculates GDP.

Subhash Chandra Garg, a former senior Finance Ministry bureaucrat, argued in Indian media that the growth rate was inflated because the government had lowered its estimate of GDP for the same quarter a year earlier, creating a weaker base against which the latest expansion was measured.

Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, raised a different concern, questioning why such robust GDP growth has not been accompanied by stronger job creation, domestic investment and foreign portfolio inflows.

Some private-sector economists have also focused on the GDP deflator, the measure used to remove price changes from nominal GDP and calculate real economic growth. They argue that the unusually low deflator may be understating inflation and consequently overstating real output growth.

The controversy has given India’s opposition another line of attack against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. A senior Congress party official dismissed the 7.8% figure as “statistical gymnastics,” turning what initially began largely as a social-media debate into a broader political dispute over the government’s economic record.

The government has faced growing pressure over employment and economic opportunity, particularly among younger Indians. Youth protests in July contributed to the resignation of the education minister and were widely seen as reflecting broader frustration over jobs, opportunities and corruption in the education system.

Government Defends Revised GDP Methodology

India’s statistics ministry responded by holding a news conference on Wednesday to defend the GDP figures and rebut Garg’s criticism.

A senior statistics official said the methodology changes introduced in February followed extensive consultation and were designed to provide a more accurate picture of economic activity.

The revised series changed the GDP base year by more than a decade and incorporated new data sources as well as changes in the goods and services captured by the national accounts.

One of the most consequential changes was the revision of nominal GDP for April-June 2025. Under the new methodology, the figure was reduced to 80 trillion rupees ($850 billion), compared with 86.05 trillion rupees under the previous GDP series. Using the old base would have produced nominal GDP growth of only 2.6% in the latest quarter, compared with the 10.3% reported under the new series.

But the government has rejected a direct comparison between the two figures, explaining that the new series does more than simply change the base year. It also incorporates revised data sources, coverage and methodology, meaning the old and new estimates are not directly comparable.

The statistics secretary said quarterly revisions over the past three years had moved in both directions, while changes to annual GDP estimates had been relatively limited.

The government’s defense is deemed necessary because GDP revisions are a normal part of national accounting. Updating the base year and incorporating better data can change the measured size and composition of an economy without necessarily implying that the underlying activity itself has suddenly changed.

The Deflator Becomes The Key Battleground

The more difficult question concerns prices.

India’s GDP deflator for April-June was just 2.3%, considerably below retail inflation of more than 4% and wholesale inflation of more than 9%. Because real GDP is calculated by stripping price changes from nominal output, the choice of deflator can materially affect the reported growth rate. A lower deflator means a larger portion of nominal growth is treated as an increase in real economic activity.

The government says the apparent gap does not indicate that inflation has been understated. It argues that the revised GDP series uses the internationally accepted method of double deflation, which separately adjusts the value of output and the cost of inputs for changes in prices.

The statistics secretary said the new system also relies on a more granular Producer Price Index, using more than 300 deflators covering inputs and outputs, compared with about 180 under the previous methodology.

That approach can produce a GDP deflator that differs significantly from consumer or wholesale inflation because the three measures capture different baskets and stages of the economy. Consumer inflation, for example, measures prices faced by households, while GDP deflation reflects the prices of domestically produced goods and services and their contribution to national output.

But that has not ended the debate.

Mumbai-based ICICI Securities Primary Dealership said the lower GDP deflator was compatible with an environment in which input prices were rising faster than output prices. In that interpretation, the unusually low deflator does not necessarily invalidate the growth figure.

Societe Generale economists took a more cautious view, noting that the low deflator raises questions about the strength of real-sector activity.

Other Indicators Provide Mixed Evidence

India’s high-frequency economic data offers ammunition to both sides of the debate, although several indicators support the government’s broader argument that economic activity remains strong.

Auto sales increased 21% in August, while bank credit growth reached a decade-high 19%. Net direct tax revenue also increased more than 23% year-on-year during the April-August period, pointing to strong activity and income generation in parts of the economy.

Those indicators make it difficult to dismiss the GDP figures as purely a statistical phenomenon.

At the same time, the Purchasing Managers’ Index, a closely watched survey-based gauge of business activity, has weakened to multiyear lows. That contrast underpins why economists remain divided over the extent to which India’s headline GDP growth is translating into broad-based economic momentum.

The disagreement also goes beyond the technical details of national accounting. The central economic question is whether India’s rapid headline growth is generating sufficient employment, investment and capital inflows to support sustained expansion. Rajan’s criticism goes directly to that issue. If output is expanding at close to 8% but employment, private investment and foreign capital flows are not accelerating proportionately, the headline number may not fully capture the quality or breadth of growth.

For the Modi government, the stakes are higher than defending a single quarterly statistic. India is seeking to sustain rapid growth while attracting investment, expanding manufacturing and creating enough jobs for a large and increasingly young workforce.

The latest figures provide evidence that the economy retains considerable momentum. But the dispute over the methodology means investors and policymakers are likely to scrutinize other indicators more closely before concluding that India’s underlying growth rate has genuinely shifted higher.

Ultimately, the credibility of the new GDP series will depend less on any single quarterly number than on whether its estimates continue to align over time with employment, investment, tax receipts, corporate activity, consumption and other independent measures of economic performance.