Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America's $1T AI Gamble

apricitas.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#51

Post by sarchertech »

wongarsu wrote: post #46
galleywest200 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is more than one month rent for most of the world. Most people are simply not going to pay this.

My rent is less than that. But if you add up salary, payroll taxes, benefits, social security etc my employer still spends around four times that amount on employing me. More if you include misc overheads associated with having one more employee. Personally I could never afford 1500-2000€/month for dev tooling, but my employer should rationally be willing to spend that for anything that makes me more than 25% more ef…

There have been many many productivity improvements over the last 50 years that provided more than a 25% boost. I’ve yet to see an employer pay that much per employee for any of them.

Also a 25% boost per individual doesn’t necessarily equal a 25% boost to the final output if there are other bottlenecks.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#52

Post by sarchertech »

co_king_3 wrote: post #39
clownpenis_fart wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use my brain, it's free

Fitting response for an account called "clownpenis_fart". The future is here and it's time to stop ignoring it. Your analog 1x productivity is worthless in comparison to my AI backed 10x productivity.

10x productivity means you should have had time to build an your own programming language/OS/integrated dev environment or something equally impressive. Can you link to it?

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#53

Post by general1465 »

gbnwl wrote: post #21
nightski wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that cost I'd just buy some GPUs and run a local model though. Maybe a couple RTX 6000s.

Same but I imagine once prices start rising the prices of GPUs that can run any decent local models will soar (again) as well. You and I wouldn’t be the only person with this idea right?

I mean, will it? I would expect that all those GPUs and servers will ends up somewhere. Look on old Xeon servers, it all ended up in China. Nobody sane will buy 1U serve home, but Chinese has recycled these servers by making X99 motherboards which takes RAMs and Xeon CPUs from these noise servers and turning into PCs.

I would expect that they could sell something like AI computers with lot of GPU power created from similar recycled GPU clusters ussed today.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#54

Post by scrollop »

vessenes wrote: post #38

This is a good analyst report - lots of data. Conclusion - firms are spending ahead of sustained revenues right now, and a lot of the money is going offshore to TSMC, basically. I’m not certain of the conclusion - I think a lot depends on amortization schedules - if data centers are fully booked right now, then we don’t need very long amortization schedules at the reported 60+% margin on inference to see this capex f…

If a different architecture to LLMs is invented (that could actually "think", that could potentially reach AGI), then perhaps it would be more efficient than LLMs. Perhaps LLMs can make themselves more efficient. They can't even remember "properly". Hallucinations cripple them for serious, professional uses. If they may hallucinate 5% of the time and you are asking mission critical queries, that's a problem.

Perhaps all of these data centers won't be needed. At least not by some of the current AI companies that won't keep up. If that happens to OpenAI, that would be quite a shock to the financial system (and GDP).

Microsoft's changes to windows have alienated some of their userbase. Copilot is poor compared to it's rivals. There's a reason they are down 20%. Linux adoption use is accelerating (still too low!).

And don't forget AI on device. When it becomes "good enough" for most tasks, data centre use will reduce.

With the talk of Nvidia backtracking and saying they won't invest 100 billion in OpenAI, Oracle in a poor financial position with the loan's for it's upcoming data centres becoming more expensive and dubious (they could fail to pay them)- the picture isn't as positive as you make it out to be. Which makes me think that you have an ulterior motive.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#55

Post by sarchertech »

webdoodle wrote: post #48
sQL_inject wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And look how it has worked out for them.

Only because the U.S. and U.K. conspired against them. The French did everything they could to keep the fire burning, by hosting people from various countries to teach them about revolution. Organizing globally against the rich parasites was hard and expensive back then. Now the only hold back, is that the rich parasites own most of the internet. But WE BUILT IT, and can take back the internet when we finally realize…

I think we need reforms and I’m very much against the accumulation of power that we’ve allowed the billionaire class.

But the French Revolution is nothing to emulate. If you’ve read the history of the French Revolution you know that it quickly moved on from rich parasites to murdering and imprisoning people over minor philosophical differences and real or lack of perceived lack of enthusiasm for continued murder. And it eventually led to global war and attempted global conquest.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#57

Post by nebula8804 »

general1465 wrote: post #33
WarmWash wrote: post #8

AI plans are not going to stay at $20/mo. People will go to alternative models, but it likely will be as popular as Linux.

Economics will be decisive force. Paying 1000USD a month for AI or buying server for 10kUSD, loading there Chinese AI model which can do 90% of what SOTA models can? Looks like a no brainer.

Man if China can catch up on the hardware front we could be seeing the 'TikTok' story repeat there. (They provide a better product>US govt panics> bans the US from the good stuff)

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#58

Post by scrollop »

jryan49 wrote: post #4
xyst wrote: post #2

And this gamble is paid for by American taxpayers, increased cost of utilities, and multibillion dollar corporations receiving tax breaks/subsidies from the cities/counties they build in. This country is so awful. Great if you are rich. Awful if you are not in this top 0.01-1%. A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s. [1] [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html

I love how they say with a straight face that when AI takes over they will finally share all the fruits of capital with us.

Saw a video summarising this on gamersnexus today and it is nauseating - especially Jensen.

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#59

Post by throwmeaway820 »

yifanl wrote: post #31
throwmeaway820 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A massive $79T has been transferred from bottom 90% to top 1% since the 1970s This assertion is based on comparing reality with a counterfactual where income distributions remained static from 1975 to the present. Real median personal income roughly doubled over this time period. The use of the word "transferred" seems a little intellectually dishonest here. The use of the counterfactual seems to suggest that incom…

Well you have a data point of one, so I guess we live in the best of all possible outcomes?

I don't understand what you mean by "data point of one"

Do you think I'm talking about my own, personal income?

I'm talking about median personal income in the United States, because the figures I found for household income only go back to 1985

Re: America's $1T AI Gamble

#60

Post by sarchertech »

ericmay wrote: post #45
rozap wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French had a tool for this problem.

Yes, guns, clubs, fire, and steel weapons. And afterward they had the Reign of Terror, and the rise of the French Emperor Napoleon. It seems like it mostly worked out in the long run, though subsequent World Wars left the French Empire as a weakened shell of itself. In the short term, up until Napoleon was finally taken down by the combined British and Prussian forces at Waterloo, it seemed to have led to all sorts o…

Exactly this. Violent revolutions are very rarely successful in increasing the average welfare and freedom of the populace.
Post reply on HN