So, less than IBM spent on System/360? Quoting Dijkstra, https://cacm.acm.org/news/an-interview-with-edsger-w-dijkstra/ https://cacm.acm.org/news/an-interview-

So, less than IBM spent on System/360? Quoting Dijkstra, https://cacm.acm.org/news/an-interview-with-edsger-w-dijkstra/ https://cacm.acm.org/news/an-interview-with-edsger-w-dijkstr... > I had no idea of the power of large companies. Only recently I learned that in constant dollars the development of the IBM 360 has been more expensive than the Manhattan Project. Hee-hee! Immediately following that is: > I was beginning to see American publications in the first issue of Communications of the ACM. I was shocked by the clumsy, immature way in which they talked about computing. There was a very heavy use of anthropomorphic terminology, the "electronic brain" or "machines that think." That is absolutely killing. The use of anthropomorphic terminology forces you linguistically to adopt an operational view. And it makes it practically impossible to argue about programs independently of their being executed. Anyway, to confirm the main point, "IBM spent 5 billion dollars in mid-1960s money" says https://thehistoryofcomputing.net/the-ibm-system360 https://thehistoryofcomputing.net/the-ibm-system360 while "the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the first atomic bomb, cost $2 B". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project says that was 1945 dollars, so about $3.5 billion 1965 dollars using the CPI Inflation Calculator at https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm . Going backwards, this $30 billion on GPU training is only $3 billion in 1965 dollars, making it cheaper than the 360.