3 ms·
> You can't really know until you have access to such a vast amount of horsepower, and can apply it to whatever you want. Something I've often wondered, and th
by cr0sh 7y ago
> You can't really know until you have access to such a vast amount of horsepower, and can apply it to whatever you want.
Something I've often wondered, and there are probably good reasons why, is that billionaire tech moguls - even the ones who are outwardly technical (or were in the past - people like Bill Gates, who we know had technical chops in the past) - that none of them (that I'm aware of) haven't ever tried to build "their ultimate computer".
For instance, if I had their kind of money, I've often thought that I would construct a datacenter (or maybe multiple datacenters, networked together) filled with NVidia GPU/TPU/whatever hardware (the best of the best they could sell me) - purely for use as my "personal computer". Completely non-public, non-commercial - just a datacenter I would own with racks filled to the brim with the best computing tech I could stuff into them (on a side note, I've also pondered the idea of such a personal datacenter, but filled with D-Wave quantum computing machines or the like).
What could you do with such a system?
Obviously anything massive parallelism could be useful for - the usual simulation, machine learning, etc; but could you make any breakthroughs with it - assuming you had the knowledge to do such work?
Which is probably why none have done it - at least as a personal thing.
I mean, sure, I would bet that people who own large swathes of machines in a datacenter, or those who outright own datacenter (like Google or Amazon) - their founders and likely internal people do run massively parallel experiments or whatnot on a regular basis, ad-hoc, and "free" - but it's a commercial thing, and other stuff is also running on those machines...
But a single person is probably unlikely to have or think of problems that would require such a grand scale before they would just "start a company to do it" or something similar; because in the end, just to maintain and administer everything in such a datacenter, if one were built, would require (I would think) the resources of a large company.
Of course, then I wonder if such companies - especially ones like Google and Amazon, which own and run many datacenters around the world, and also sell the resources of them for compute purposes - weren't started in some fashion (even if only in the back of their heads) by their founders with that idea or goal in mind (that is, to be able to own and use on their whim "the world's largest amount of computing power"...?
- kjs3 7y agoPaul Allen kinda did just that, although in a different direction. He built a datacenter and filled it with a bunch of old computers he thought were cool, like the DEC PDP-10. It's now the Living Computer Museum in Seattle. https://www.pcworld.com/article/3313424/inside-seattle-living-computer-museum-pc-history.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/3313424/inside-seattle-livin...
- derefr 7y agoI feel like "tech moguls" are the wrong type to expect this kind of interest out of. They got rich on either tools or workflows (i.e. CRUD), not intelligence/analytics/prediction. It's not the same mindset. If anyone were to own a secret HPC cluster, it'd probably be a finance billionaire. Or the owner of a think-tank who made their money as a subcontractor for state intelligence agencies.