4 ms·
maybe Nvidia is fine but I don't understand this logic. suppose it turns out GPUs are unnecessary at all, but they still provide a performance boost, but you ca
by amazingamazing 2y ago
maybe Nvidia is fine but I don't understand this logic. suppose it turns out GPUs are unnecessary at all, but they still provide a performance boost, but you can do everything you can do right now with CPUs w.r.t performance. would that be good or bad for Nvidia?
unless it can be said we need more performance than is currently possible, e.g. new demand, it would be catastrophic. it is unclear that throwing more compute actually expands what is possible. if that is not the case, efficiency is bad for nvidia because it simply results in less demand.
- diggan 2y agoI could see arguments be made in both ways here. If GPUs end up being more efficient/powerful (like today) it could induce even more demand, but also if CPU gets within ~20% of how fast you can do something with a GPU, people might start opting for something like Macs with unified memory instead of GPUs. Today a CPU setup is still nowhere near as fast as a GPU setup (for ML/AI), but who knows how it looks like in the future. > it is unclear that throwing more compute actually expands what is possible Wasn't that demonstrated to be true already in the GPT1/2 days? AFAIK, LLMs became a thing very much because OpenAI "discovered" that "throwing more compute (and training data) at the problem/solution expands what is possible"