4 ms·

On the other hand, if Intel is still committed to the AI business, it all hinges on the GPUs at the moment.

Rinzler89 2y ago
The AI bubble could pop by that time leaving them broke with overpriced doorstops in stocks. That's like building Bitcoin miners before it popped. Too risky to go all in on AI now when Nvidia already has a stronghold monopoly that even AMD can't break.
- xattt 2y ago
  Intel has cranked up its dev support and market cornering machine in the past. Let’s see if it can do that again without a near-monopoly market status.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  And AI will pop soon, there's reports that the AI companies and their suppliers have dumped billions in R&D and investments but are slow to start earning that back.
- throw310822 2y ago
  Curious what you (and others) mean with "AI bubble popping". I mean, in practice? Crypto was a bubble (or well, a hype) in that almost none of the proposed applications ever looked remotely plausible, even to a superficial assessment. (Meanwhile, BTC is still around $50k). But the "AI bubble"? Are we going to discover that none of the LLM-based applications that are being developed now actually works (despite many having already been working for years, e.g. copilot) AND at the same time that further improvements, both in the LLMs themselves and in the code surrounding them, are impossible- in other words, that LLMs, after four or five years of development at most are already a mature technology? Are we not going to find any new use cases for agents that have almost the skills of specialists, minus some kind of cognitive impairment? Honest question, I don't understand.
  - Rinzler89 2y ago
    >Curious what you (and others) mean with "AI bubble popping" Large corps and FAANGS are spending billions on Nvidia HW and on ML training but all those LLMs aren't earning them any money, in fact they're still loosing money just to capture the market share and consumer mindset, but there's doesn't seem to be a profit light at the end of the tunnel. Once they've bled enough money with no chance of RoI, they'll put a halt on ML expansion and stop buying Nvidia HW. Intel entering at that point would be suicide.
    - throw310822 2y ago
      True, those LLMs are not earning them any money, but do you think they lack future applications (and future improvements) that would be worth the money those companies are spending now?
      - Rinzler89 2y ago
        Like I said, there's no proof of massive profitability potential in the near future. You can dream about an optimistic utopic future for those LLMs but the expense bills are real and they are right now.
      - zifpanachr23 2y ago
        I've yet to see future applications that would justify the current spend. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'm skeptical that they exist to the extent they would need to in order to justify the hundreds of billions of spend. The spend seems to be based on faith that there will be some kind of major breakthrough...but that does appear to be entirely faith based. We don't have any evidence to indicate that it's likely.
        throw310822 2y ago
        > The spend seems to be based on faith that there will be some kind of major breakthrough... I think that rather than being a matter of having or not faith in a future breakthrough, the difference is between those who believe that there's already been a major breakthrough in the last few years and those who deny it.

The AI bubble could pop by that time leaving them broke with overpriced doorstops in stocks. That's like building Bitcoin miners before it popped. Too risky to go all in on AI now when Nvidia already has a stronghold monopoly that even AMD can't break.

xattt 2y ago
Intel has cranked up its dev support and market cornering machine in the past. Let’s see if it can do that again without a near-monopoly market status.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
And AI will pop soon, there's reports that the AI companies and their suppliers have dumped billions in R&D and investments but are slow to start earning that back.
throw310822 2y ago
Curious what you (and others) mean with "AI bubble popping". I mean, in practice? Crypto was a bubble (or well, a hype) in that almost none of the proposed applications ever looked remotely plausible, even to a superficial assessment. (Meanwhile, BTC is still around $50k). But the "AI bubble"? Are we going to discover that none of the LLM-based applications that are being developed now actually works (despite many having already been working for years, e.g. copilot) AND at the same time that further improvements, both in the LLMs themselves and in the code surrounding them, are impossible- in other words, that LLMs, after four or five years of development at most are already a mature technology? Are we not going to find any new use cases for agents that have almost the skills of specialists, minus some kind of cognitive impairment? Honest question, I don't understand.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >Curious what you (and others) mean with "AI bubble popping" Large corps and FAANGS are spending billions on Nvidia HW and on ML training but all those LLMs aren't earning them any money, in fact they're still loosing money just to capture the market share and consumer mindset, but there's doesn't seem to be a profit light at the end of the tunnel. Once they've bled enough money with no chance of RoI, they'll put a halt on ML expansion and stop buying Nvidia HW. Intel entering at that point would be suicide.
  - throw310822 2y ago
    True, those LLMs are not earning them any money, but do you think they lack future applications (and future improvements) that would be worth the money those companies are spending now?
    - Rinzler89 2y ago
      Like I said, there's no proof of massive profitability potential in the near future. You can dream about an optimistic utopic future for those LLMs but the expense bills are real and they are right now.
    - zifpanachr23 2y ago
      I've yet to see future applications that would justify the current spend. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I'm skeptical that they exist to the extent they would need to in order to justify the hundreds of billions of spend. The spend seems to be based on faith that there will be some kind of major breakthrough...but that does appear to be entirely faith based. We don't have any evidence to indicate that it's likely.
      - throw310822 2y ago
        > The spend seems to be based on faith that there will be some kind of major breakthrough... I think that rather than being a matter of having or not faith in a future breakthrough, the difference is between those who believe that there's already been a major breakthrough in the last few years and those who deny it.