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

An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

morethanmoore.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#71

Post by aurareturn »

ksec wrote: post #63
aurareturn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably met Intel management when they were booming in the old days. LBT was hired to replace Pat because the board needed someone who didn't have the rose colored glasses that old Intel management had and actually see Intel what it is today: losing in everything. When LBT took over, Intel was on a path to bankruptcy. Although Pat wasn't solely responsible, he was financially reckless and failed to win any major…

> he was financially reckless and failed to win any major customers for Intel's new IFS strategy. So currently the IFS has a few potential customers was because of LBT and not Pat? >* Now they're missing the fab boom by cancelling fabs a few years ago Reckless in finance but also missing the Fab boom?

IFS now doesn’t have a major customer but it seems like companies are at least taking them seriously now. LBT doesn’t have the same arrogance that Pat had when it comes to courting external customers.

Yes, they over invested at the wrong time, cancelled fabs or delayed them. Had they saw the AI boom coming in 2023, he wouldn’t have cancelled.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#72

Post by saghm »

aurareturn wrote: post #33
cubefox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel in 2019 had $72 billion in revenue and 110k employees. When he was fired in 2024, Intel had $54 billion in revenue and 124k employees. He also didn't cut dividend until 2024. He nearly put Intel into the grave in 3 years. That's nonsense. Intel's problems were caused by falling behind TSMC, which was not the fault of Pat Gelsinger. Quite the contrary, he did a lot to turn things around, but this takes time, a…

They had far more problems than just falling behind TSMC. See my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 Under Pat, Intel overestimated the covid boom, which nearly put them into bankruptcy. They hired many more employees while their revenue tanked. He went on an IFS spending spree while he lacked execution on actually winning external customers. He didn't stop dividends until 2024 which tel…

If having $54 billion dollars is "near bankruptcy", I think a lot of people wish they were nearly bankrupt.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#73

Post by saghm »

dieortin wrote: post #32
dzonga wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

me personally, I wouldn't bet against companies like Intel that have full government banking. soon or later they were gonna turn things around with military precision specially with DOD, Intelligence folks giving advice.

What makes the DoD qualified to give advice about manufacturing microprocessors?

I think the implication is that if they're doing this, they'll probably be buying some things from them, and the DoD has quite a lot of money.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#74

Post by aurareturn »

saghm wrote: post #72
aurareturn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had far more problems than just falling behind TSMC. See my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 Under Pat, Intel overestimated the covid boom, which nearly put them into bankruptcy. They hired many more employees while their revenue tanked. He went on an IFS spending spree while he lacked execution on actually winning external customers. He didn't stop dividends until 2024 which tel…

If having $54 billion dollars is "near bankruptcy", I think a lot of people wish they were nearly bankrupt.

Intel’s market cap was trading below their assets. Investors were pricing in bankruptcy risk.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#76

Post by saghm »

aurareturn wrote: post #74
saghm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If having $54 billion dollars is "near bankruptcy", I think a lot of people wish they were nearly bankrupt.

Intel’s market cap was trading below their assets. Investors were pricing in bankruptcy risk.

Sure, if they tried to spend all of their assets on buying back all of the existing stock that would be a sign they might be going bankrupt. Alternately, maybe the market cap isn't a perfect representation of how much a company is worth and it's a reflection of a complex array of factors that aren't easily explained away in favor of a simple narrative.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#77

Post by sifar »

fooker wrote: post #69
sifar wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of man. Oh wait that is Dune :). I think what OP meant is Asimov's stories revolve around issues arising from loopholes or some interpretation of the three laws of robotics.

Correct, I meant it in a more general way. Asimov’s favorite overarching theme is that whenever you try to constraint robot/AI ethics with rules, creative misinterpretations or misunderstandings tend to have outsized impact.

Yes, that is my main takeaway to. Adn that is why all the talk about AI alignment/safety seem pointless to me.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#79

Post by fmajid »

ksec wrote: post #63
aurareturn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably met Intel management when they were booming in the old days. LBT was hired to replace Pat because the board needed someone who didn't have the rose colored glasses that old Intel management had and actually see Intel what it is today: losing in everything. When LBT took over, Intel was on a path to bankruptcy. Although Pat wasn't solely responsible, he was financially reckless and failed to win any major…

> he was financially reckless and failed to win any major customers for Intel's new IFS strategy. So currently the IFS has a few potential customers was because of LBT and not Pat? >* Now they're missing the fab boom by cancelling fabs a few years ago Reckless in finance but also missing the Fab boom?

Also because the Trump administration is twisting arms of big potential customers like Apple, in order to have a second source and reduce dependence on Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing. That's despite Lip-Bu Tan, whom Trump distrusts simply because he is ethnically Chinese.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#80

Post by fooker »

sifar wrote: post #77
fooker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, I meant it in a more general way. Asimov’s favorite overarching theme is that whenever you try to constraint robot/AI ethics with rules, creative misinterpretations or misunderstandings tend to have outsized impact.

Yes, that is my main takeaway to. Adn that is why all the talk about AI alignment/safety seem pointless to me.

Oh no, it's not pointless. It's just doublespeak.

It exists so there's a way to respond to demands like 'no criticizing Israel', or 'Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory', or double negatives like 'no not agreeing to automated droning'.

Because if you do not have a way to agree with these, your business can and wil be targeted and shut down.

Post reply on HN