321–330 of 364 posts
> worth around $5.4trn Note that the Fed has a $6.7tn balance sheet [1]. (This is a silly comparison. But still fun.) The real comparison: Nvidia's $500+ billion of investments and commitments [2] is substantially more than any easing the Fed has done in the same time [3]. Monetarily, Nvidia is creating a lot of money in our economy. The good news: I have seen no evidence Nvidia has borrowed against its stock or othe…
> worth around $5.4trn Note that the Fed has a $6.7tn balance sheet [1]. (This is a silly comparison. But still fun.) The real comparison: Nvidia's $500+ billion of investments and commitments [2] is substantially more than any easing the Fed has done in the same time [3]. Monetarily, Nvidia is creating a lot of money in our economy. The good news: I have seen no evidence Nvidia has borrowed against its stock or othe…
versus
Fed open market operations that occur in full instantly and are the primary mechanism for increasing the money supply
k.
I am a bit confused at people looking at this negatively. If Nvidia believes AI demand is extraordinarily high, and that it requires a large capital outlay to serve that capital, isn't this what they should be doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! That's very helpful as a way to discuss. First off, I'd include Qwen flash-next and GLM 5.3 to show some of the other strong open weight models, and they predictably dominate it, but they're much larger. But, it shows up right next to DSv4 Flash 0731 on the overall index, and that's much larger. It's a great model! But then scroll down and hit Time Per Task, and you'll see that DSv4 Flash takes 3.6 seconds pe…
> Qwen flash-next and GLM 5.3 to show some of the other strong open weight models, and they predictably dominate it Absolutely - no argument from me here. Bigger is very clearly a lever you can pull to get more out of a model. > But then scroll down and hit Time Per Task, and you'll see that DSv4 Flash takes 3.6 seconds per task to Qwen's 21.1 Fair point, qwen definitely is slower - it’s a dense model, 27b params, vs…
>One data point that seems relevant to me is that the previous gen qwen Qwen3.6-27b was not so different in performance from its sibling model Qwen3.6-35b-a3b. We never got a qwen3.8-35b-a3b, but if we had, would the gap have stayed the same or gotten bigger? I.e. would the quality gains by improving training coming up against a hard limitation with 35b, or not.
Yeah good question, kind of shocking that a 3b active model would perform as well as a 27b dense.
Interesting juxtaposition with Dario's/Anthropic's 'we must pace the frontier' missive today
I wonder when they will give up on the gaming market because that could take down several publishers and developers. I really don't think it's an if question but a when because it almost feels like an afterthought at this point (they removed the standalone gaming revenue report from the financial reports this summer). Also I don't think AMD and Intel is capable "to step in" to replace them.
AMD would step in, they where behind nvidia but they've been closing that gap for a while and the 9070XT is the current value king (in this fucked up market) for mid-high gaming and you can actually buy them. Demand for Nvidia cards has outstripped supply even on the mid-high cards specifically because they do better with local models than AMD cards with the same VRAM do broadly. AI has completely broken the PC gamin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think is more than reasonable to be suspicious of studies funded by party with conflict of interest. Think of how many studies about climate change were funded by big polluters, for example. In 2026, the default outlook should be suspicion for any big private organisations with profit motive.
I think it’s less than reasonable to operate mainly on vibes, rumors, and hearsay. You don’t need to think about climate change studies. Instead you can read the allegedly tainted studies we’re actually talking about and profess to all of us what is wrong with them. You can’t point to exactly where they’ve fudged them.
If Nvidia is a bank, it's an Islamic Bank. They don't take interest (usury), they share profits and risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance Imagine a scenario where the AI bubble bursts and AI companies and neoclouds go bankrupt en masse, and then a huge rebound occurs when AI has a delayed takeoff. Nvidia ends up with a massive amount of compute on its hands from its backstop deals, and it al…
And then when the kings ran out of money, they sacked the Knights and whoopsies, looks like the knights had no real money as they spent it as quickly as they could maintaining their financial network... Sound familiar?
> worth around $5.4trn Note that the Fed has a $6.7tn balance sheet [1]. (This is a silly comparison. But still fun.) The real comparison: Nvidia's $500+ billion of investments and commitments [2] is substantially more than any easing the Fed has done in the same time [3]. Monetarily, Nvidia is creating a lot of money in our economy. The good news: I have seen no evidence Nvidia has borrowed against its stock or othe…
nvidia's money either comes from equity, or from debt. This means this money is "created" not from nothing, but from future commitments (ala, debt repayments, or promise of profits), which is not the same as what comes out of the Fed.
The Fed printing has no backing behind it - it is definitely inflationary if they do it. Investment from nvidia (or any other company) "creating money" may be productive enough to completely offset their inflationary effects - after all, the company investing demands returns from their investments, and so will only invest in things they expect to return much higher than the cost of interest (or cost of capital).
Therefore, you cannot compare Fed printing money to company investing money.