2 ms·

So it seems like everyone is on the "bubble wagon", including most people on HN. Personally for me, I'm on the "it's only 1995 wagon". There are so many ideas

So it seems like everyone is on the "bubble wagon", including most people on HN. Personally for me, I'm on the "it's only 1995 wagon". There are so many ideas I want to do based on LLMs but they require very cheap tokens (better hardware, more efficient models, smarter smaller models, etc.) So to me, we're not even close to peak AI hardware demand. In my humble opinion, peak AI demand isn't anywhere close. This is in a world where China is so starved for sanctioned Blackwell chips that they're still stuck on GPT4-level training hardware. Not to mention that I believe every phone and computer will need local hardware powerful enough to inference capable models. That's a lot of chips.

maxglute 1y ago
Demand forces is measured in $$$'s all the bubble talk is there aren't enough demand in $$$'s to justify projected supply, but more significantly, the time dimension of building supply and deprecation of supply is not favourable. We can simultaenously go through a crippling bubble burst that gives all the big players huge haircuts and still live in a post bubble world where demand/supply continues to increase because hardware improves, i.e. chips X gen from now can do 1T worth of data center compute with 100m, but right now that 1T worth of data center might only return 200b - the economics of the current iteration is bubbly. Almost obviously bubbly because we're dealing sychronizing (really mismatch) between very expensive, capex heavy, fast to build but faster to depreciating compute, and also very expensive, capex heavy, slow to build infra. It's a deadly combo. It's an EXTRA deadly combo because the fast deprecating compute component (i.e. 80% of investment) makes are fast spoiling stranded assets. These are not 50/100 year hard assets like rail or fiber rollout where most of the work is simply civil engineering - moving a fuckload of earth that can be reaped for generations. Most of chips and bespoke datacenter infra are >5-10 year assets (it's not tulips but it's closer to tulips than rail), there's no reason to use them if gen +X chips makes their capex + opex completely obsolete / economically unviable.

maxglute 1y ago

Demand forces is measured in $$$'s all the bubble talk is there aren't enough demand in $$$'s to justify projected supply, but more significantly, the time dimension of building supply and deprecation of supply is not favourable. We can simultaenously go through a crippling bubble burst that gives all the big players huge haircuts and still live in a post bubble world where demand/supply continues to increase because hardware improves, i.e. chips X gen from now can do 1T worth of data center compute with 100m, but right now that 1T worth of data center might only return 200b - the economics of the current iteration is bubbly. Almost obviously bubbly because we're dealing sychronizing (really mismatch) between very expensive, capex heavy, fast to build but faster to depreciating compute, and also very expensive, capex heavy, slow to build infra. It's a deadly combo. It's an EXTRA deadly combo because the fast deprecating compute component (i.e. 80% of investment) makes are fast spoiling stranded assets. These are not 50/100 year hard assets like rail or fiber rollout where most of the work is simply civil engineering - moving a fuckload of earth that can be reaped for generations. Most of chips and bespoke datacenter infra are >5-10 year assets (it's not tulips but it's closer to tulips than rail), there's no reason to use them if gen +X chips makes their capex + opex completely obsolete / economically unviable.