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

Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 296 posts

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#81

Post by therobots927 »

lukeschlather wrote: post #75
therobots927 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What % of GPUs are running self driving software or robotics? And what is the ROI on either of those right now?

The answers to both of those questions are pretty guarded trade secrets. Amazon and Google just to name a couple examples are very profitable companies and I would not bet on them investing all this money without real use cases where profit is likely. Amazon is adding thousands of new robots to their factories every year.

So your argument basically boils down to, the datacenter build out is not a waste of resources because if it was, these companies wouldn’t be building them.

Got it.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#83

Post by therobots927 »

theonemind wrote: post #65
operatingthetan wrote: post #37

Is this an appropriate spend and risk? I'm starting to feel as if we have been collectively glamoured by AI and are not making sound decisions on this.

It doesn't seem like it to me. I like watching Ed Zitron rant about it on YouTube. It's fun.

Same. He’s very knowledgeable about this and very skeptical. Not to mention hilarious.

I’m getting my popcorn ready for the bubble pop.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#84

Post by therobots927 »

pstuart wrote: post #78
amelius wrote: post #68

We could have had a space elevator by now.

We could have had non-carbon energy independence by now.

But the AI fanatics claimed that AI would solve cold fusion, making that whole thing moot.

The only problem is, if AI doesn’t solve cold fusion, we’re back to square one. And a few trillion dollars in the hole.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#85

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

yabutlivnWoods wrote: post #80
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Makes it a little less dramatic. But also shows what a big *'n deal the railroads were! It also makes it more dramatic, consider the programs on the list and what they have in common. * The Apollo program. A government-funded science project. No return on investment required. * The Manhattan Project. A government-funded military project. No return on investment required. * The F-35 program. A government funded mili…

You're actually arguing those highly technical engineering projects provided nothing to humanity investing labor in them because they were not a financial success? Just confirms my suspicion HN is not a forum for intellectual curiosity. It's been entirely subsumed by MBAs and wannabe billionaires.

> You're actually arguing those highly technical engineering projects provided nothing to humanity investing labor because they were not a financial success?

No. Re-read the comment.

I specifically say "No return on investment required" not "Has no return on investment". It didn't matter whether these projects earned back their money in the short term, or whether it takes the longer term of many decades.

The ISS hasn't earned back it's $150 billion, and it won't for a pretty long time yet. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing for humanity. Just means that it'd be a bad idea to have the project ran & funded by e.g. SpaceX. The project would've failed, you just can't get ROI on $150 billion within the timeframe required. SpaceX barely survived the cost of developing it's rockets. (And observe how AI spending is currently crushing the profitability of the newly-merged SpaceX-xAI.)

I'm not even saying "AI doesn't provide anything to humanity", I was saying that AI needs trillions of dollars in returns that do not appear to exist, and so it's likely to collapse.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#87

Post by wahern »

somenameforme wrote: post #42
helterskelter wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need to go that far back to run into issues, when I read Pride and Prejudice, I think Mr. Darcy was one of the richest people in England at around £10,000/year, but if you to calculate his wealth in today's terms it wasn't some outrageous sum (Wikipedia is telling me ~£800,000/year). The thing is that the economy was totally different back then -- labor cost practically nothing, but goods like furnitur…

The big change is the end of any sort of backing in money. The Minneapolis Fed calculated consumer price index levels since 1800 here. [1] Of course that comes with all the asterisks we're speaking of here for data going back that far, but their numbers are probably at least quite reasonable. They found that from 1800 to 1950 the CPI never shifted more than 25 points from the starting base of 51, so it always stayed…

And yet the homeownership rate in 1950 was 53% (an all-time high up to that point) compared to 65% today: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Housi... Only 80% of units had private indoor toilets or showers.

It is notable that the median monthly rent was $35/month on a median income of $3000, so ~15% of income spent on rental housing. But it's interesting reading that report because a significant focus was on the overcrowding "problem". Housing was categorized by number of rooms, not number of bedrooms. The median number of rooms was 4, and the median number of occupants >4 per unit (or more than 1 person per room). I don't think it's a stretch to say that the amount of space and facilities you get for your money today is roughly equivalent. Yes, greater percentage of your income goes to housing, and yet we have far more creature comforts today then back in 1950--multiple TVs, cellphones, appliances, and endless amounts of other junk. We can buy many more goods (durable and non-durable) for a much lower percentage of our income.

There's no simple story here.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#88

Post by wr2 »

manquer wrote: post #73
timmg wrote: post #3

This tweet shows it as a percentage of US GDP: https://x.com/paulg/status/2045120274551423142 Makes it a little less dramatic. But also shows what a big **'n deal the railroads were!

GDP adjustments are warranted, but it is more stark than both the estimates suggest. The megaprojects of the previous generations all had decades long depreciation schedules. Many 50-100+ year old railways, bridges, tunnels or dams and other utilities are still in active use with only minimal maintenance Amortized Y-o-Y the current spends would dwarf everything at the reported depreciation schedule of 6(!) years for…

Also railways would always have alternative uses at that time - e.g. logistics in warfare.

What other uses do GPU's have that are critical...? lol

In addition to your points, this is why I always laugh when people do backward comparisons. What characteristics do they share in common? Very little.

Re: Hyperscalers have already outspent most famous US megaprojects

#90

Post by hyperbovine »

timmg wrote: post #3

This tweet shows it as a percentage of US GDP: https://x.com/paulg/status/2045120274551423142 Makes it a little less dramatic. But also shows what a big **'n deal the railroads were!

The railroad buildout was a lot more, idk, tangible. Most of that money was spent employing millions of people to smelt iron, lay track, build bridges, blow up mountains, etc. It’s a lot more exciting than a few freight loads of overpriced GPUs.
Post reply on HN