541–550 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike railroads and fibre, all the best compute in 2025 will be lacklustre in 2027. It won’t retain much value in the same way as the infrastructure of previous bubbles did?
The A100 came out 5.5 years ago and is still the staple for many AI/ML workloads. Even AI hardware just doesn’t depreciate that quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I watch a GPU repair guy and its interesting to see the different failure modes... * memory IC failure * power delivery component failure * dead core * cracked BGA solder joints on core * damaged PCB due to sag These issues are compounded by * huge power consumption and heat output of core and memory, compared to system CPU/memory * physical size of core leads to more potential for solder joint fracture due to therma…
These failures of consumer GPUs may be not applicable to datacenter GPUs, as the datacenter ones are used differently, in a controlled environment, have completely different PCBs, different cooling, different power delivery, and are designed for reliability under constant max load.
Consuker gpu you have no idea if they've shoved it into a hotbox of a case or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Effectively every single H100 in existence now will be e-waste in 5 years or less. This remains to be seen. H100 is 3 years old now, and is still the workhorse of all the major AI shops. When there's something that is obviously better for training, these are still going to be used for inference. If what you say is true, you could find a A100 for cheap/free right now. But check out the prices.
Yeah, I can rent an A100 server for roughly the same price as what the electricity would cost me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google got a massive leg up on the rest be having a better service. When Bing first came out, I was not impressed with what I got, and never really bothered going back to it. Search quality isn't what it used to be, but the inertia is still paying dividends. That same inertia also applied to Google ads. I'm not nearly so convinced OpenAI has the same leg up with ChatGPT. ChatGPT hasn't become a verb quite like google…
I actually find bing better now for more technical searches. Most technical Google searches end up at win fourms or official Microsoft support site which is basically just telling you that running sfc scannow for everything is the fix.
Try searching for something technical which isn't MS-specific. That should be a more neutral test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> $2 billion on sales and marketing - anyone got any idea what this is? I used to follow OpenAI on Instagram, all their posts were reposts from paid influencers making videos on "How to X with ChatGPT." Most videos were redundant, but I guess there are still billions of people that the product has yet to reach.
There’s a bunch of users here that are probably paid by them too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is OpenAI's competitive moat? There's no product stickiness here. What prevents people from just using Google, who can build AI stuff into their existing massive search/ads/video/email/browser infrastructure? Normal, non-technical users can't tell the difference between these models at all, so their usage numbers are highly dependent on marketing. Google has massive distribution with world-wide brands that peopl…
Consumer brand quality is so massively underrated by tech people. ChatGPT has a phenomenal brand. That's worth 100x more than "product stickiness". They have 700 million weekly users and growing much faster than Google. I think your points on Google being well positioned are apt for capitalization reasons, but only one company has consumer mindshare on "AI" and its the one with "ai" in its name.
I don't think majority of those 700m people use the product because of the brand. Products are a non-trivial contributor to the brand.
Also, if it were phenomenal, they wouldn't be called ClosedAI ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is now valued at $500bn though. I doubt the investors are too wrecked yet. It may be like looking at the early Google and saying they are spending loads on compute and haven't even figured how to monetize search, the investors are doomed.
Google was founded in 1998 and IPOed in 2004. If OpenAI was feeling confident they'd find ways to set up a company and IPO, 9 years after founding. It's all mostly fictional money at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention nobody bothered chasing Amazon-- by the time potential competitors like Walmart realized what was up, it was way too late and Amazon had a 15-year head start. OpenAI had a head start with models for a bit, but now their models are basically as good (maybe a little better, maybe a little worse) than the ones from Anthropic and Google, so they can't stay still for a second. Not to mention switching costs…
This right here. AI has no moat and none of these companies has a product that isn't easily replaced by another provider. Unless one of these companies really produces a leapfrog product or model that can't be replicated within a short timeframe I don't see how this changes. Most of OpenAI's users are freeloaders and if they turn off the free plan they're just going to divert those users to Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when people started referring to searching the internet as googling, they know their brand has made it. It is the same with chatGPT.
Even I often tell I chatgeepeeteed the result, in the same fashion when I continue saying I googled the result, while actually I used Duck Duck Go. I could ask another LLM provider, but I have no idea how to communicate that properly to a non-technical folks. Heck, I don’t want to communicate that _properly_ to tech peers either. I don’t like these pedantic phrases ‘well, actually … that wasn’t Google, I used DDG for…
That's a you thing.
That headline can't be correct. Income is revenues minus expenses (and a few other things). You can't have both an income and a loss at the same time. It's $4.3B in revenue .