4 ms·
That was literally my question. Is this basically just for more datacenters, NVidia chips, and electricity with a sprinkling of engineers to run it all? If so,
by burnte 2y ago
That was literally my question. Is this basically just for more datacenters, NVidia chips, and electricity with a sprinkling of engineers to run it all? If so, then that $500bn should NOT be invested in today's tech, but instead in making more powerful and power efficient chips, IMO.
- bitmasher9 2y agoI don’t know if $500bn could put anyone ahead of nvidia/tmc.
- entropicdrifter 2y agoNvidia's in on it, so presumably this is a doubling-down on Nvidia as the chip developers
- amluto 2y ago$500bn of usefully deployed engineering, mostly software, seems like it would put AMD far ahead of Nvidia. Actually usefully deploying large amounts of money is not so easy, though, and this would still go through TSMC.
- patall 2y agoHe wanted to do that, but would have needed 5T for that. Only got 100 bn so far, so this is what you get (only slightly /s)
- bdangubic 2y agoif only $500bn was enough to make more powerful and power efficient chips…
- Havoc 2y agoAdd some nuclear power and you’ve suddenly got a big bill
- burnte 2y agoNot really. Plant Vogtle in Georgia was way over budget and still was "only" $35bn. $500bn could get you 14 of those.
- kristianp 2y agoNvidia and TSMC are already working on more powerful and efficient chips, but the physical limits to scaling mean lots more power is going to be used in each new generation of chips. They might improve by offering specific features such as FP4, but Moore's law is still dead.
- pillefitz 2y agoAnd we are, running on a 20W brain.