Robin Wood retweeted
I expect SpaceX to build a superintelligence-first computer. Not one device. Two that act as one agent.
The brain lives at home. Purpose-built compute and storage with Starlink connectivity, holding your photos, documents, spreadsheets, emails and files. It runs Grok bots 24/7 on real work: forms, research, finances, browser tasks. Your private archive stays at home, and you control what gets shared. When a task needs more horsepower, larger models in the cloud can help, using only the context you authorize. Local memory, connected intelligence, human control.
It also coordinates your connected home: lights, thermostat, TV, speakers, doorbell, security cameras, even your Tesla's charging and climate. One system instead of a dozen apps.
The senses live in your pocket. A Grok-first phone with Starlink Direct to Cell, built to keep you connected beyond traditional cellular coverage. Camera, mic, calls, location.
No app store maze. A few familiar screens for photos and maps, and Grok handles the rest across services. You don't navigate apps. You ask.
The phone captures. The home system remembers and works. Photos, notes and requests sync securely to your home computer, catching up whenever you're back online, and results come straight back to your phone.
You just talk:
"Call the dentist and move my appointment."
"Post this photo to X."
"Find the receipt I snapped in March and add it to my tax records."
"Lock up and cool the house to 68 before I get home."
Why SpaceX? Look at the stack it's assembling: the Terafab chip initiative, massive compute infrastructure, Starlink connectivity, Grok's intelligence and X's distribution.
The missing layer is personal hardware. A computer at home and a phone in your pocket would turn all that infrastructure into something that works for you all day. Silicon to satellite to your hand. That's the vertically integrated superintelligence company I expect SpaceX to become.
The playbook is Tesla FSD: keep a human in the loop and use corrections to improve the system. Grok does the task. You correct it when it drifts. It learns your preferences. With permission, those lessons could improve the broader system, without moving anyone's personal archive into the cloud.
Today I run my life on Grok bots using a Mac mini with an M4 Pro chip. It works, but it's a repurposed machine. Computers were built for humans to operate. This one would be built for superintelligence to do the work, with a human in control.
The end state: an invisible personal agent that understands your digital life, runs your home and gets things done for you.
Not a smarter phone. Not another chatbot. One agent, at home and in your pocket.
Longer term, I expect SpaceX to bring Neuralink into the fold. Then the senses move from your pocket to your body. Your eyes become the camera, your body's own signals become the sensors, and the phone mostly fades away. You still need the brain at home holding your life, but the device you carry becomes you.
Tesla applied this playbook to driving. SpaceXAI could apply it to computing.
Only companies to have 2 seats at the table are $PLTR and Anthropic 👀
“The labs seem to have a general sense that Palantir has solved AI deployment. But we think Palantir solved a deeper problem, one that the labs don’t seem to grok: the problem of connecting powerful computation to local institutional knowledge without destroying an institution’s sovereignty or its incentive to reveal that knowledge.”
$PLTR
I feel seen.
arenamag.com/articles/forwar…
Robin Wood retweeted
What's concerning about Elon's haters being among the dumbest people on Earth is that if he succeeds they'll be the dumbest people on other planets, too.
Robin Wood retweeted
I organized an intervention to stop Elon from starting SpaceX. Here is the story...
Twenty five years ago, Elon and I sat in a car on a dark stretch of Long Island highway, two neurodiverse geeks staring at the night sky and wondering what came next. We had both experienced substantial exits and felt the weight of possibility ahead of us.
When I joked about 'space' while gazing upward, neither of us imagined we were planting the seed for what would become the largest IPO in history. We spent the next two hours debating why space was so hard. In the end, rockets are fuel and metal. We also debated where to go, and it was crystal clear that Mars was the only real destination.
Upon returning to NYC, we embarked on a global tour of space, meeting space agencies and luminaries worldwide. This opened our eyes to an industry stuck in bureaucratic thinking. If things continued at that pace, it was clear that we would never explore space in our lifetime.
So, we launched Life to Mars to show the world that two ambitious young men (29 and 30 years old), could send life to Mars without any government backing or support. We planned to send and grow plants on Mars, though some were pushing us to send mice.
We had a $50 MM budget that rested on our purchase of two Russian ICBMs for $7 MM each. We assumed one ICBM would fail, and we would learn and fix everything before launching again. When Elon went back to actually buy the ICBMs, the Russians tripled the price, bringing out launch costs from a total of $14 MM to $42 MM.
Our ambitious Life to Mars plan was no longer viable.
As you might imagine, Elon was not pleased. So, he decided to start SpaceX and create his own Mars rockets. Now, this is a crazy idea, both now and at the time, so I organized a large panel of top space experts, and we ambushed him at the Georgian Hotel one morning. It was set up like an intervention for an alcoholic, but for space.
Elon looked me in the eye when leaving the room and said, "I am going to do this." The intervention failed. Elon was committed. The rest is history.
I am excited to see this IPO after 25 years of hard work. What SpaceX has done is a testament to human will and overcoming insurmountable obstacles. It's nothing short of amazing.
Congratulations, E. Amazing.
Robin Wood retweeted
We're building a Moon Base!
@NASAMoonBase will serve as a habitat where astronauts live and work during long-term science missions.
Join us at 2pm ET on Tuesday, May 26, for a live news event where we’ll share updates on our lunar exploration plans: go.nasa.gov/4uinkLi
ALT An artist's concept depicting two suited astronauts working on the lunar surface. One is standing next to a surface light, while the other is kneeling; equipment, including rovers and habitations, dot the hilly landscape surrounding them. Credit: NASA
Robin Wood retweeted
Three years since the first flight of Starship, the next generation is here. New ship. New booster. New engines. New pad and new test site. SpaceX engineers are working to solve one of the most difficult engineering challenges in history: developing a fully, rapidly reusable rocket
I am amazed at the product we build at Palantir.
Yes it's great, but it is also the most nuanced, hardest to sell, hardest to grok product in enterprise software. The longer I've been at this, the more I believe it is the fact that we have all been trained by software companies.
We've been taught how to think about and buy software by the Software Industrial Complex (SIC). And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
I'm not saying we (Palantir) make it easy. But more and more, I'm watching a lightbulb go on in conversations. A switch flips and people suddenly see past what they've been told matters.
Here's the playbook the SIC has drilled into every enterprise:
1: Start with a reference architecture diagram from an analyst firm
2: Overlay what you already have, find the gaps
3: Go read the reports, who's in the Magic Quadrant (Gartner is the WORST)
4: Pick 2-3 vendors, get a limited trial, sit through demos
5: Work with procurement to make a deal
6: Rinse and repeat for every gap, every point solution, across the entire landscape
By the time you get it all stood up? Months. Years. And what do you actually have? A patchwork of solutions that don't share the same security model, don't scale the same way, need to be managed and patched separately, and require an army of integrators just to make them talk to each other. You just became locked in to integrations.
Now steelman the SIC for a second. This approach isn't irrational. It's a risk mitigation strategy. You buy best-of-breed for each category because no single vendor can be best at everything, right? Analysts exist because buyers genuinely need help navigating a market with thousands of vendors. The Magic Quadrant gives procurement teams air cover. And point solutions let you swap out one piece without blowing up the whole stack. That's the logic. It makes sense on paper.
This is where I see it breakdown in reality:
The SIC optimizes for the buying of software, not the operating of a business. Every point solution you bolt on adds another integration to maintain, another data silo to bridge, another vendor relationship to manage. You end up spending more time and money keeping the Frankenstein architecture alive than actually using it to make decisions.
And the real cost isn't even the software licenses, it's the organizational drag. Every time someone needs to answer a question that spans two systems, they're filing a ticket, waiting on an integration team, or exporting to Excel. That's not a technology problem. That's an operating model problem that the SIC created and then sells you more software to "solve."
This is why Palantir is hard to sell in a 30-minute demo. You can't explain an operating system by showing a feature. The best way to sell Tesla FSD is for people to take a test drive. Sometimes you have to feel magic.
This is what I see with Palantir, the fastest way to breakout of this is to touch and feel it, feel the magic.
When the lightbulb goes on, what people actually see is this: they've been buying puzzle pieces from different puzzles and wondering why the picture never comes together.
The value isn't in any single capability, it's in having a single substrate where your data, your logic, your workflows, and your decisions all live together. Where security is one model, not twelve. Where scaling means scaling one thing, not coordinating twelve vendor roadmaps.
Software vendors don't want you to see this because the fragmentation is the business model. Every gap is a sale. Every integration is a services engagement. Every failed deployment is a "digital transformation" consulting opportunity.
I'm not saying burn it all down. But I am saying the next time someone hands you a reference architecture with 47 logos on it and calls it a "strategy," ask yourself: who is this architecture actually serving?
You should be asking what outcome will this deliver this week?
🚀🚀🚀
Announcing TERAFAB: the next step towards becoming a galactic civilization nitter.gq/i/broadcasts/1yKAPMzlv…
Robin Wood retweeted
Building an interstellar civilization
spacex.com/updates#xai-joins…
Robin Wood retweeted
Leaked image of the people responsible for leading the negotiations between SpaceX, Tesla and xAI as they consider merging together.
Robin Wood retweeted
I am pro abundance and positive sum thinking, but it strikes me that "abundance" is becoming a word that motivates believers, not one that convinces skeptics.
If you are reading this, congratulations, you are already in the age of abundance. And that's why abundance is a slippery slope. Abundance is real and also not enough. We are already living in a time that would look like obscene plenty to almost any ancestor: calories, entertainment, convenience, information, medicine, miracles stacked like cheap plastic cups. And yet nobody walks around feeling “finally, enough.”
Because “enough” is not a material threshold, it’s a social and psychological one.
The minute abundance becomes normal, it stops registering as abundance and starts registering as baseline, and desire immediately re-anchors itself to whatever scarcity remains: status, belonging, meaning, safety, respect. If you make everything plentiful except dignity, people will riot for dignity.
Abundance is complicated because it can expand the menu without touching the hunger.
None of which changes the core point that not striving for abundance is still the biggest mistake. Scarcity is not noble, it’s just expensive suffering, but we also need something more than abundance, because unfortunately the luddites will still revolt if all they have is abundance.
