61–70 of 207 posts
My understanding is Groq failed to deploy their second-gen chips on time, which caused their stock to deflate.
Groq's primary advantage over Cerebras and SambaNova, as I see it, is they don't fabricate on TSMC. That's attractive to Nvidia, who doesn't want to give up any of their datacenter GPU allocation.
Ya well, startups are just low risk R&D facilities in service of big tech now https://centreforaileadership.org/resources/opinion_startups...
I don't understand what "low risk" means here. For a start-up, 99% risk of failure is low. What are we comparing that to?
If those things were integrated into the giant there would be political risk of it eating all of the money of the giant.
This is what happen when your government is run primarily thru corruption. sorry, not corruption! retainer fees and timely stock purchases. different thing!
so same as always, eh? or different this time around?
This is what happen when your government is run primarily thru corruption. sorry, not corruption! retainer fees and timely stock purchases. different thing!
so same as always, eh? or different this time around?
The writing style here is so belittling, and frankly stupid. E.g. "billion is so big!", uh, I've heard of a billion before, and then comparing the value of a company to a single person's salary, as if that was very relevant.
Go talk to someone outside of tech this week, preferably someone working in the trades or something else that's less dependent on a computer, and ask them about their AI use. You'd be surprised how new a lot of the tech concepts in this article are to people that might have only heard of ChatGPT. That is who I'm writing for.
Ya well, startups are just low risk R&D facilities in service of big tech now https://centreforaileadership.org/resources/opinion_startups...
I don't understand what "low risk" means here. For a start-up, 99% risk of failure is low. What are we comparing that to?
Ya well, startups are just low risk R&D facilities in service of big tech now https://centreforaileadership.org/resources/opinion_startups...
I don't understand what "low risk" means here. For a start-up, 99% risk of failure is low. What are we comparing that to?
If you do very risky R&D in a big corpo then the risk creeps into other things: other projects might look at the R&D and say, “we will just use that when it’s done”. It’s a lazy kind of move for tech leaders to make, because it makes you look like a team player, and if the R&D goes belly up then you have someone else to blame. This ultimately leads to risky R&D in a big corpo not being compartmentalized as much as it should be. If it fails, it fails super hard with lots of fallout.
But risky R&D at a startup is compartmentalized. Nobody will say they use the output of the startup until there are signs of life, and even then healthy caution is applied.
It's a shame. Groq was really great. Nvidia is stifling innovation here. I don't understand how market regulators allow this.
One of them will surely be right eventually!