21–30 of 65 posts
"OpenAI rejected me so the entire industry is going to collapse" is certainly a take. They are still probably one of the less arrogant engineers in silicon valley.
"OpenAI rejected me so the entire industry is going to collapse" is certainly a take. They are still probably one of the less arrogant engineers in silicon valley.
There’s no sour grapes in this article. I went in expecting the same but found that the author actually makes a good point.
"OpenAI rejected me so the entire industry is going to collapse" is certainly a take. They are still probably one of the less arrogant engineers in silicon valley.
This is just not correct. Also nobody is making optimization startups because if you cared you’d have an in house team working on it.
There are a few "optimization startups". But in this context I find it a bit ironic that pretty much everyone is working with the same architecture, and the same hardware for the most part, so actually there isn't really that much demand for bespoke optimizations.
If they optimize though - and this is coming at some point - local AI becomes possible, and their entire business case as a cloud monopoly evaporates. I think they know they're in a race between centralized control, and widespread use and control, and that is what is really driving this.
Yes, if you see the LLM as a compressed dictionary of all available information. But if they succeed with agentic reasoning models (we are absolutly not there yet) then I think meritocracy will be replaced with assetocracy. The better the model, the more expensive it will be and the better the software will be. I don’t worry about it myself, but I do worry for my kids. Im not even sure what to teach them anymore to h…
It does not matter what your income is if you cannot budget and save.
"OpenAI rejected me so the entire industry is going to collapse" is certainly a take. They are still probably one of the less arrogant engineers in silicon valley.
The take is that small incremental improvements on the hardware-software at that scale imply massive returns yet there isn't much work for that use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no sour grapes in this article. I went in expecting the same but found that the author actually makes a good point.
It isn't really. The assumption that these companies aren't hiring any infrastructure engineers is absurd. They all have massive in-house teams doing GPU optimization and everything else that the author brings up. They just don't need an external consultant for it.
It's good that you didn't give up ! So i understand correctly,they spend more even thought They can, optimize and spend less ?
I believe the author is making the point that the companies spending all this money on hardware aren't concerned at all with how the hardware is actually used. Optimization isn't even being considered because its the total cost spent on hardware that is the goal, not output from the hardware.
This is just not correct. Also nobody is making optimization startups because if you cared you’d have an in house team working on it.
That is unfortunate, because these are special skills you may but find inhouse. I know some guys that did it inhouse for a long time, toured from project to project in the right phase and saved bigcorp lots of money. Now they are doing it publicly. https://efficientware.net/how-we-work/
I see a lot of comments here criticizing the author, and I think both teams have a point. There's definitely a bubble, because companies are buying up infrastructure which doesn't need to be used right now. But also, the companies are buying up this infrastructure because whoever controls the infrastructure also controls the industry in around 5 years time.
Source? Satya Nadella seems to disagree with your statement (at least as I understand both): https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadell...