Larry Ellison's ambitious, half-billion-dollar investment in sustainable farming in Hawaii has largely failed to achieve its goals. His company, Sensei Farms, aimed to revolutionize agriculture with high-tech greenhouses and hydroponic techniques, promising locally grown produce and food security. However, after years of operation and significant financial losses, Sensei has dramatically scaled back its operations, laying off staff and abandoning plans for expansion. While the company claims to be pivoting towards research and development, the project is widely considered a costly misstep, demonstrating the difficulty of translating tech industry success to the complexities of agriculture.
SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX are partnering to build data centers specifically designed for generative AI, codenamed "Project Stargate." These centers will host tens of thousands of Nvidia GPUs, catering to the substantial computing power demanded by companies like OpenAI. The project aims to address the growing need for AI infrastructure and position the involved companies as key players in the generative AI boom.
HN commenters are skeptical of the "Stargate Project" and its purported aims. Several suggest the involved parties (Trump, OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank) are primarily motivated by financial gain, rather than advancing AI safety or national security. Some point to Trump's history of hyperbole and broken promises, while others question the technical feasibility and strategic value of centralizing AI compute. The partnership with the little-known mining company, MGX, is viewed with particular suspicion, with commenters speculating about potential tax breaks or resource exploitation being the real drivers. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is one of distrust and cynicism, with many believing the project is more likely a marketing ploy than a genuine technological breakthrough.
Summary of Comments ( 19 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43161188
Hacker News commenters are largely skeptical of Ellison's Lanai farming project. Many question the economic viability of high-tech, hydroponic farming at scale, especially given the transportation costs from a remote island. Some see it as a vanity project, disconnected from the realities of agriculture and food security. Others point out the irony of Ellison, known for his aggressive business practices, now promoting sustainability. A few commenters offer more nuanced perspectives, suggesting that the project's failure might stem from management issues rather than inherent flaws in the concept, while others highlight the difficulty of disrupting established industries like agriculture. Several comments also discuss the potential for unintended consequences, such as the impact on local water resources and the ethical implications of controlling food production.
The Hacker News post titled "Larry Ellison's Half-Billion-Dollar Quest to Change Farming Has Been a Bust" has generated a fair number of comments discussing the WSJ article about Larry Ellison's farming venture in Hawaii. Many of the comments express skepticism and cynicism about the project's success and Ellison's motivations.
Several commenters highlight the inherent difficulties of large-scale agriculture and the naivete of approaching it as a purely technological challenge. They point out that farming involves complex biological and ecological systems that are not easily optimized through technology alone, and that Ellison's approach seems to disregard the expertise of experienced farmers. Some suggest that Ellison's wealth allows him to pursue such ventures without the same pressure for profitability that would constrain other businesses, leading to unsustainable practices and ultimately, failure.
There's a recurring theme of questioning Ellison's true goals. Some speculate that the farming project is more about lifestyle and personal interest than genuine agricultural innovation or food security. Others suggest tax advantages or land speculation might be motivating factors. The idea that Ellison is using the farm as a "rich person's hobby" is mentioned more than once.
A few commenters draw parallels to other tech billionaires' forays into seemingly unrelated fields, often with less-than-stellar results. This leads to broader discussions about the limitations of a Silicon Valley mindset when applied to complex real-world problems outside the tech sphere. The idea that "software solutions" can't fix everything is a recurring sentiment.
Some commenters express concern about the environmental impact of Ellison's project, particularly regarding water usage in a water-stressed region. They question the sustainability of the venture and its potential consequences for the local ecosystem.
While critical of Ellison's approach, some comments offer alternative perspectives. Some suggest that even failed projects can yield valuable lessons and contribute to progress in the long run. Others point out that innovation often involves experimentation and failure, and that Ellison's investment, even if unsuccessful, might stimulate further development in sustainable agriculture.
Finally, a few commenters express a degree of admiration for Ellison's ambition and willingness to invest in a challenging field. While skeptical of the project's current success, they acknowledge the importance of tackling food security and exploring new approaches to agriculture.