41–50 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why Oracle?
They're extremely exposed to a market crash due to their huge debt-funded compute contracts. Having said that, while one can always hope, I would assume that Oracle is one of these companies that will be bailed out or find a way to survive.
Open weight and local hosting is far, far cheaper. In every respect. Even support is cheaper, over time. However, it's difficult to sell this to businesses who want contracts and KPIs, not staff and commitments. Regulated industries will favour the closed sources, either by choice or mandate. The interesting question is whether they will have better models, or worse models. History says they will receive a worse serv…
Until your country will appear on naughty list of US administration because your local politician did something what mildly inconvenienced US oligarch
The giants knew this was coming, and soon 95% of AI tasks will be able to be done by open models (coding, research, cowork style work). So why pay a premium? Why use them at all? This leaves the labs with two options: 1) push the frontier in a way only massive scale can, and cash in on it (mythos level cyber security, recursive training, frontier science work). There’s big money for never before possible capabilities…
Google already owns the app layer, and hardware, and they are a frontier-level AI research firm. I don't see how Anthropic or OpenAI survives being eaten by DeepSeek et al from the bottom of the stack and Google from the top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream. Cheap access to space was once a pipe dream. Reusable boosters were once a pipe dream. A new player beating Boeing to the ISS was once a pipe dream. LEO constellations were once a pipe dream. Launching thousands of satellites was once a pipe dream. You should know that a) they are already running "AI" chips on their current sats. and b) they are already producing kW of…
If just Elon was taking about data centers in space, you could take it with a grain of salt. But there are other serious players talking about it like Google and blue origin that it should be pretty clear it can't just be dismissed with "you didn't think about cooling!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Reach AGI', the same way SpaceX will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream.
> will put data centers in orbit. A pipe dream. Cheap access to space was once a pipe dream. Reusable boosters were once a pipe dream. A new player beating Boeing to the ISS was once a pipe dream. LEO constellations were once a pipe dream. Launching thousands of satellites was once a pipe dream. You should know that a) they are already running "AI" chips on their current sats. and b) they are already producing kW of…
And in ocean you don't have to solve for radiation nor cooling.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/desktops/servers/microsoft-shel...
With cache hit rates being effectively free, harnesses like Reasonix have let me do a month of work for less than 2 dollars. It's not even the subsidies making it cheap, American providers like Digital Ocean or Cloudflare host the same model with similar pricing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people's argument is that it's impossible to put data centers into space. The argument is that the downsides (radiation, cooling, maintenance, power) are so severe that it is pointless to do it at scale.
Go back to the megathreads when this came up. Even here on HN. Plenty of people used the argument that it can't be done, for various reasons. And my point was that at one point or the other there were many "downsides" for all the tech that SpaceX already has. Reusable boosters were seen as "uneconomical" and "pointless unless they can fly 10 times" by industry experts. They're now flying 30+times a booster. LEO const…
Pretty much everything about data centers in space is worse than having them on Earth. Apart from niche use cases, the only reason you'd talk about data centers in space is if you had a company with rocket ships and needed a story to tie your rocket ships to the current AI craze.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the price difference is 2x? Sure. If the price difference is 50x? No way.
So long as the benefit:cost ratio is still sufficiently high, I don't think anyone gets fired for not scrimping. Better to encourage positive EV behaviour by your employees than to scare them away by firing them for not being perfectly optimal.