Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell me more about why you believe their stock is hilariously overvalued.
They are priced as if they are the only ones who are capable of creating chips that can crunch LLM algos. But AMD, Google, Intel, and even Apple are also capable. Apple is in talks with Google to bring Gemini to the iPhone, and it will obviously also be on android phones. So almost every phone on earth is poised to be using Gemini in the near future, and Gemini runs entirely on Google's own custom hardware (which is…
Making a graphics chip that is as good as Nvidia: Very difficult. Huge moat, huge effort, lots of barriers, lots of APIs, lot of experience, lots of decades of experience to overcome.
Making something that can run a NN: Much, much easier. I'd guess, start-up level feasible. The math is much simpler. There's a lot of it, but my biggest concern would be less about pulling it off and more around whether my custom hardware is still the correct custom hardware by the time it is released. You'd think you could even eke out a bit of a performance advantage in not having all the other graphics stuff around. LLMs in their current state are characterized by vast swathes of input data and unbelievably repetitive number crunching, not complicated silicon architectures and decades-refined algorithms. (I mean, the algorithms are decades refined, but they're still simple as programs go.)
I understand nVidia's graphics moat. I do not understand the moat implied by their stock valuation, that as you say, they are the only people who will ever be able to build AI hardware. That doesn't seem remotely true.
So... correct me Internet. Explain why nVidia has persistent advantages in the specific field of neural nets that can not be overcome. I'm seriously listening, because I'm curious; this is a deliberate Cunningham's Law invocation, not me speaking from authority.