601–610 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is neither fair nor sustainable That's half what I pay in Italy, I'm sure the richest country in the world will do fine.
Here in Belgium a stupid amount of that bill is hidden taxes. i kind of assume it's similar in Italy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But real GPUs are being built, installed and used. It's not paper money, it's just buying goods and services partly with stock. Which is a very solid and time honored tradition which happens to align incentives very well.
What revenues do these GPUs generate for OpenAI? OpenAI is not currently profitable, and it is unclear if its business model will ever becomes profitable -- let alone profitable enough to justify this investment. Currently, this only works because the markets are willing to lend and let NVIDIA issue stock to cover the costs to manufacture the GPUs. That's where the belief that we are in a bubble comes from.
Well, yes. Which again is how venture capitalism has worked for ... is it decades or centuries? There is always an element of risk. With pretty solidly established ways to handle: expected value, risk mitigation etc.
I haven't lived through the dot com bubble (too young) but i've read about it. The absolutely insane ways they were throwing money at startups were... just insane. The potential of the technology is the same now and then: AI vs Internet. It wasn't the tech that failed the last time, it was the way the money was allocated.
The math is actually quite mathing this time around. Most AI companies have solid revenues and business models. They aren't turning a profit because (like any tech startup) they chose to invest all their revenue plus investments into growth, which in this case is research and training new models. They aren't pivoting every 6 months, aren't burning through cash reserves just to pay salaries, and they've already gone through train/deploy cycles several times each, successfully.
Are they overvalued? shrug that's between them and their investors, and we'll find that out eventually. But this is not a bubble that can burst as easily as last time, because we're all actually using and paying for their products.
Framing it in gigawatts is very interesting given the controversy about skyrocketing electric prices for residential and small business users as a result of datacenters over the past three years, primarily driven by AI growth. If, as another commenter notes, this 10GW is how much Chicago and NYC use combined , then we need to have a serious discussion about where this power is going to come from given the dismal stat…
I work in the datacenter space. The power consumption of a data center is the "canonical" way to describe their size. Almost every component in a datacenter is upgradeable—in fact, the compute itself only has a lifespan of ~5 years—but the power requirements are basically locked-in. A 200MW data center will always be a 200MW data center, even though the flops it computes will increase. The fact that we use this unit…
> letter of intent for a landmark strategic partnership > intends to invest up to xxx progressively > preferred strategic compute and networking partner > work together to co-optimize their roadmaps > look forward to finalizing the details of this new phase of strategic partnership I don't think I have seen so much meaningless corporate speak and so many outs in a public statement. "Yeah we'll maybe eventually do som…
Framing it in gigawatts is very interesting given the controversy about skyrocketing electric prices for residential and small business users as a result of datacenters over the past three years, primarily driven by AI growth. If, as another commenter notes, this 10GW is how much Chicago and NYC use combined , then we need to have a serious discussion about where this power is going to come from given the dismal stat…
I work in the datacenter space. The power consumption of a data center is the "canonical" way to describe their size. Almost every component in a datacenter is upgradeable—in fact, the compute itself only has a lifespan of ~5 years—but the power requirements are basically locked-in. A 200MW data center will always be a 200MW data center, even though the flops it computes will increase. The fact that we use this unit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe more like converting energy to data, as a more specific type of refinement.
Using energy to decrease the entropy of data. Or to organize and structure data.
Framing it in gigawatts is very interesting given the controversy about skyrocketing electric prices for residential and small business users as a result of datacenters over the past three years, primarily driven by AI growth. If, as another commenter notes, this 10GW is how much Chicago and NYC use combined , then we need to have a serious discussion about where this power is going to come from given the dismal stat…
Theoretically couldn't you use all the waste heat from the data center to generate electricity again, making the "actual" consumption of the data center much lower?
(Things might be different if you had some sort of SiC process that let you run a GPU at 500C core temperatures, then you could start thinking of meaningful uses for that, but you'd still need a river or sea for the cool side just as you do for nuclear plants)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> N2 is shaping up to be TSMC's most important node since N7 Is it? N2, from an energy & perf improvement seems on par with any generation node update. N2:N3 N3:N5 N5:N7 Power ~30% ~30% ~30% Perf ~15% ~15% ~15% https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-reveals-2nm-fabricati...
Yes. It has more tape outs at this stage of development than both N5 or N3. It’s wildly popular for chip designers it seems.