15 ms·
After the AI boom: what might we be left with?
- arisAlexis 1y agoThe singularity. I don't think most authors of articles like these understand what the AI build up is about, they think it's another fad tool.
- mjhay 1y agoYou might want to listen to what people besides Sam Altman and Ray Kurweil say, at least once in a while.
- tim333 1y agoYou don't need to listen to those guys. The basic idea is quite simple. If human brains are basically biological computers, as electronic computers steadily improve and some point they'll surpass the biological ones. That point roughly is the singularity or whatever you want to call it. It occured to me as a teenager and I wrote an essay on if for my uni admissions exam back in 1981 but it's not rocket science and the idea goes back at least to John von Neumann who came up with the 'singularity' term in the 50s.
- arisAlexis 1y agoThat AI progress will stop because X? It's their normalcy bias (look it up) talking. There is no stopping.
- mjhay 1y agoThank you for letting me know about “normalcy bias.” This is a term and concept I previously hadn’t the slightest inkling of. Now I understand the Light of our Machine God.
- gizmo686 1y agoWe've had AI booms before. In terms of capabilities, this one is following exactly the same trajectory. Human researchers come up with some sort of breakthrough improvement to AI methods, that results in exponential like growth of capability as we both solve the low hanging fruit the method offers at it, and scale up the compute and data available to the limits of what is useful for the method. Then, capabilities start to plateau, and there is a long tail of the new techniques being applied in specific situations as they get combined with domain specific tuning and architecture. We are well into this process already. Core chat capabilities have pretty much stalled out. But most of the attempts at application are still very thin layers over chat bots.
- akomtu 1y agoIMO, a big reason for this stagnation is that many researchers who could push the AI further choose not to because they came to believe that AI will do no good for humanity. It would be odd to have intellect strong enough to advance AI and at the same time somehow to not see the consequences of such 'progress'.
- arisAlexis 1y agoDo you have any proof of progress plateau and any proof that we had been in the past in an exponential AI cycle or you just think that it is so?
- abathologist 1y agoIndeed, the critics can only be so critical because they are not convinced of the revealed truth that we are materializing machine god. How irrational.
- dotnet00 1y agoI'm hoping that it's sarcasm to be invoking a machine god while calling the non-believers irrational.
- pixl97 1y agoWhile the majority of people invoking the idea of a machine god are being irrational the idea in itself has at least some merit. Some animals are more intelligent than others. Humans far more intelligent than the vast majority of animals, and with tools and cooperation in large societies we live in an existence they are not equipped to comprehend. This invites the question of what are the limits of intelligence. Is it far beyond our capabilities? If so, what does that look like to us.
- wmf 1y agoEven if you believe in the Singularity, there will be a crash if investors stop investing before it hits.
- arisAlexis 1y agoWhy would they stop investing if they think correctly that AI progress is unstoppable
- f4uCL9dNSnQm 1y agoIt is totally irrational: let's invest in AI companies, on the off chance that Singularity happens and makes money and entire economics system obsolete. There is no winning scenario.
- arisAlexis 1y agoIt's not an off chance. Technology and innovation doesn't stop, only with nukes.
- dinobones 1y agoGPUs still won't be cheap
- lifestyleguru 1y agoWhat will be the next thing eating all GPUs, after crypto and now AI?
- tobias3 1y agoThe autonomous drones fighting in the next war (let's hope not...).
- WalterSear 1y agoIMHO, it will be autonomous robotics - one way or another.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lifestyleguru 1y agothe only hope is that there will be not enough electricity, and that population will not be deprived of electricity too brutally
- willis936 1y agoI can't tell you the name, but it will be another scam all the same.
- mikert89 1y agoI cant believe people still arent grasping the profound implications of computers that can talk and make decisions.
- softwaredoug 1y agoYou can have a bubble, and still have profound impact from AI. See also the dotcom boom.
- mikert89 1y agowho cares about a bubble? we are on the cusp of intelligent machines. The implications will last for hundreds of years, maybe impact the trajectory of humanity
- mjr00 1y ago> we are on the cusp of intelligent machines. Nah, we aren't. There's a reason the output of generative AI is called slop.
- skywhopper 1y agoExcept we aren’t. They aren’t thinking, and they can’t actually make decisions. They generate language. That feels magical at first but in the end it’s not going to solve human problems.
- bigyabai 1y ago> we are on the cusp of intelligent machines. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. We have machines that talk, which is corollary to nothing.
- fruitworks 1y agoSometimes I wonder if reason is partially a product of manipulating language.
- flyinglizard 1y agoI admit to only being in this industry for three decades now, and only designing and implementing the thermal/power control algo of an AI chip family for three years in that time, but it's the first time I hear of chips "wearing under high intensity use".
- bsaul 1y agothanks for that comment. I know absolutely nothing about chip designs, but i too was under the assumption that chips, like anything, wear out. And the more you use them, the more they do. Is the wear so small that it’s simply negligible ?
- flyinglizard 1y agoAs long as you keep temperatures and currents in check, there's no reason for a chip under load to fare worse than an idle chip. Eventually, maybe, but not in the 5-10 year lifespan expected of semiconductors.
- sam_bristow 1y agoWasn't there a phenomenon with the GPUs being retired from crypto mining operations being basically cooked after a couple of years. Likely because they weren't keeping temperatures in check and just pushing the cards to their limits.
- cyberax 1y agoChips absolutely do wear out. Dopants electromigrate and higher temperatures make it faster. Discrete components like capacitors also tend to fail over time. Is it going to be that significant though? No idea.
- ACCount37 1y agoDepends on the design, and how hard you push it. Just ask Intel what happened to 14th gen. It's not normally an issue, but the edge cases can be very sharp. Otherwise, the bigger concern is the hardware becoming obsolete because of new generations being significantly more power efficient. Over a few years, the power+cooling+location bill of a high end CPU running at 90% utilization can cost more than the CPU itself.
- archerx 1y agoI believe the next step will be robotics and getting A.I. to interact with the physical world at human fidelity. Maybe we can finally have a Rosie from the Jetsons.
- blibble 1y ago> Maybe we can finally have a Rosie from the Jetsons. just what I want, a mobile Alexa that spews ads and spies on me 24/7
- archerx 1y agoI don’t think Amazon will be the only one making them so maybe don’t buy one from a shitty company.
- trollbridge 1y agoRobots still haven’t come close to replicating human and animal touch as a sense, and LLMs don’t do anything to help with that.
- pixl97 1y agoI mean, even the human brain is broken up in different parts and the parts that do touch are insanely old compared to higher thinking. The LLM parts tell the robot parts the plate should go to the kitchen.
- archerx 1y agoHave you seen what Boston dynamics has been up to? Progress is happening faster than you think.
- card_zero 1y agoSo, they released a new gripper with touch sensors. Then there's this article: https://rodneybrooks.com/why-todays-humanoids-wont-learn-dexterity/ https://rodneybrooks.com/why-todays-humanoids-wont-learn-dex... Talking about human hands having tens of thousands of receptors of several different types, and the difficulty of tasks like picking up a match, and the trouble with the project of learning dexterity by brute force.
- scellus 1y agoHe writes as if only datacenters and network equipment remain after the AI bubble bursts. Like there won't be any AI models anymore, nothing left after the big training runs and trillion-dollar R&D, and no inference served.
- Juliate 1y agoThe point is, after the bubble burst, will there be enough funds, cash flow and... a viable market, to make these still run?
- muldvarp 1y agoInference is not that expensive. I'd argue that most models are already useful enough that people will pay to run them.
- rootusrootus 1y agoAt $20/month for Claude, I'm satisfied. I'll keep paying that for what I get from it, even if it never improves again.
- Juliate 1y agoOf course, but my point is that I don't think it's economically sustainable. If innovation/funding in AI stalls, those $20 will likely skyrocket fast.
- rjh29 1y agoWho's going to pay to run those models? They are currently running at a huge loss.
- antonvs 1y agoI run models for coding on my own machines. They’re a trivial expense compared to what I earn from the work I do. The “at a loss” scenario comes from (1) training costs and (2) companies selling tokens below market to get market share. Neither of those imply that people won’t run models in future. Training new frontier-class models could potentially become an issue, but even that seems unlikely given what these models are capable of.
- cactusplant7374 1y ago> Most of the money is being spent on incredibly expensive GPUs that have a 1-3 year lifespan due to becoming obsolete quickly and wearing out under constant, high-intensity use. How about chips during the dotcom period? What was their lifespan?
- bc569a80a344f9c 1y agoThat’s irrelevant because the primary assets left after the dotcom bubble was fiber in the ground with a lifetime measure in decades.
- cactusplant7374 1y agoThe author of the article is comparing past and present. It's not irrelevant to the article.
- bc569a80a344f9c 1y agoThe whole point of the article is that the dotcom era produced long term assets that stayed valuable for decades after the bubble burst, and argues that the AI era is producing short term assets that won’t be of much use if the bubble bursts.
- cactusplant7374 1y agoBut the chips of the dotcom era were not long-term assets. The author appears to claim that.
- bc569a80a344f9c 1y agoWhere? I scanned the article again. I can’t seem to find that.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1y ago
- mrcwinn 1y agoWithout moralizing or assuming the worst intentions of oligarchs, globalists, evil capitalists, and so on, I still don’t understand how a consumption based economy continues to fund the build out (oil->Saudi Arabia->LPs->OpenAI) when the technology likely removes the income of its consumers. Help me understand.
- antonvs 1y agoJust channeling amoral billionaires here, so don’t shoot the messenger, but if everything is automated by machines that you control, you no longer need to farm humans for capital. Not saying that’s even remotely realistic over the next century, but it does seem to be how some of these people think. Excessive wealth destroys intelligence, it doesn’t enhance it, as countless examples show.
- dotnet00 1y agoIt looks like they're planning on funding it through circular purchase agreements and looting the rest of the world.
- mrcwinn 1y agoAll of “circular” those bets only work if there are real purchase orders and real revenue. In fact the two major deals are literally tied to that. So it doesn’t answer my question. Real GPUs are bought. Presumably because real consumption is taking place. Presumably because real value (productivity) is produced. Which in turn reduces knowledge work labor (maybe?). Which may destroy jobs. Which reduces excess income and consumption in… a consumer-driven economy. My point is, it’s actually not rational for the worst actors you could imagine. There’s a link in the chain missing for me logically and I think “billionaires” actually isn’t the answer.
- kcexn 1y agoThe theoretical link that is missing is that AI isn't supposed to reduce knowledge work, it is supposed to free labor to concentrate on higher value work and investment. Nobody knows what that work is though, and nobody wants to talk about it lest everyone realizes this all might be a house of cards.
- dbg31415 1y agoI hope we'll get back to building things that actually matter -- solutions that help real people; products that are enjoyable to use, and are satisfying to build. As the noise fades, and with luck, the obsession with slapping "AI" on everything will fade with it. Too many hype-driven CEOs are chasing anything but substance. Some AI tools may survive because they're genuinely useful, but I worry that most won't be cost-effective without heavy subsidies. Once the easy money dries up, the real engineers and builders will still be here, quietly making things that work. Altman's plea -- "Come on guys, we just need a few trillion more!" -- and that error-riddled AI slide deck will be the meme that marks the top of the market.
- novaRom 1y agoDemocracy, personal freedoms, and rule of law are things that matter, but I am afraid we cannot get back to them quickly without significant efforts. We need first to get back to sanity. In authoritarian society AI is a tool of control, do we want it to be like that?
- zkmon 1y agoAlso, the eco-system plays the biggest controlling role in the bubble and its aftermath. Ecosystem of social, political and business developments. Dotcom aftermath still had the wind from all the ecosytem trends that brought the dotcom back with bigger force. If the post AI hype world still has high priority for these talking bots, then maybe it's comparable to dotcom. If the world has other bigger basic issues that need attention, then yes, it could become a pile of silent silicon.
- maxglute 1y agoAI chips and bespoke data centers are closer to tulips than rail or fiber in terms of deprecated assets. They're not fungible stranded assets with long shelf life or room for improvment. Bubble bursting also points to current model towards AI is inherently not economically viable, i.e. we'll still be inferencing off existing models but won't be pouring 100billions into improving them. TLDR much more all or nothing gambit than past infra booms.
- bitmasher9 1y ago> GPUs that have a 1-3 year lifespan In 10 years GPUs will have a lifespan for 5-7 years. The rate of improvement on this front has been slowing down faster then CPU.
- enord 1y agoWait… are you betting on exponential or logarithmic returns?
- stanac 1y agoThere was a video on YT (gamers nexus I think) and an excel sheet comparing jumps in performance gains between each new nvidia generation. They are becoming smaller and smaller, probably now driven by AI boom where most of the silicon is used for data centers. Regardless of that, I have a feeling we are approaching the ceiling of chip performance. Just comparing PS3 and PS4 and then PS4 with PS5, performance jump is smaller and size of the hardware has become enormous and GPUs are more and more power hungry. If generational jumps were good enough we wouldn't need more power and cooling and big boxes for desktop PCs that can hold long graphic cards.
- bobthepanda 1y agoWe also have hit ceilings of performance demand. As an example, 8K TVs never really got off the ground because your average consumer could give a hoot. Vision Pro is a flop because AR/VR are super niche. Crypto is more gambling than asset class. Etc. What is interesting is that it seems like the ever larger sums of money sloshing around are resulting in bigger, faster hype cycles. We are already seeing some companies face issues after blowback from adopting AI too fast.
- jay_kyburz 1y agoHaving a local AI might kick start consumer interest in hardware again. I haven't thought about buying a beefy PC in 10 years, but I was wondering how much I would have to spend to run a cutting edge LLM here at home. (It might be too expensive to pay for LLM subscriptions when every device in your house is "thinking" all day long. A 3-5k Computer for a local llm might pay itself off after a year or two. )
- CuriouslyC 1y agoThis is where we're headed: https://sibylline.dev/articles/2025-10-12-ai-is-too-big-to-fail/ https://sibylline.dev/articles/2025-10-12-ai-is-too-big-to-f...
- jdalgetty 1y agoYikes
- Havoc 1y agoPretty wild read. Thinking similar - for better or worse this is a full send, at least for the US centric part of the world.
- bubblelicious 1y agoGreat take! Certainly resonates with me a lot - this is war path funding - this is geopolitics; and it’s arguably a rational and responsible play - we should expect to see more nationalization - whatever is at the other end of this seems like it will be extreme And, the only way out is through
- Belphemur 1y agoQuite an interesting read Basically saying we're in war time economy with a race to super intelligence. Whichever super power does it first has won the game. Seeing the last tariffs and what China done about the rare earth minerals (and also the deal the US made with Ukraine for said minerals), the article might have a point that the super power will cripple each other to be the first with the super intelligence. And you also need money for it so tariffs.
- verzali 1y agoIt says the people running the US right now think that is the game we are playing - it doesn't say it is the one we actually are playing. America is utterly fucked if they are wrong, and only a bit less so if they are right.
- dsr_ 1y agoThere's only one problem with a race to superintelligence, and that's that nobody has evidence that mere intelligence is coming, much less superintelligence. (There are a thousand more problems, but none of them matter until that first one is overcome.)
- alganet 1y agoOne key difference in all of this is that people were not predicting the dotcom bubble, so there was a surplus left after it popped. It was a surprise. This AI bubble already has lots of people with their forks and knifes waiting to capitalize on a myriad of possible surpluses after the burst. There's speculation on top of _the next bubble_ and how it will form, even before this one pops. That is absolutely disgusting, by the way.
- pixl97 1y ago> of _the next bubble_ and how it will form This is how humans have worked with pretty much every area of expansion in at least the last 500 years and probably longer. It's especially noticeable now because the amount of excess capital in the world from technological expansion makes it very noticeable and a lot of the limitations we know of in physics have been ran into, so further work gets very expensive. If you want to stop the bubbles you have to pretty much end capitalism, if which capitalists will fight you about. If AI replaces human thinking and robots human labor that 'solves' the human capital problem but opens up a whole new field of dangerous new ones.
- tim333 1y ago>people were not predicting the dotcom bubble I don't know if you were there at the time but saying wow what a bubble was much of the conversation back then. I don't know if it was predicting it as saying gosh just look - you can take any company and put ".com" in the name and the stock goes up 5x, it's nuts.
- rz2k 1y agoLocal/open-weight models are already incredibly competent. Right now a Mac Studio with 256GB can be found for less than $5000, and an equivalent workstation will likely be 50% cheaper in a year. If anything that price is higher because of the boom, rather than subsidized by a potential bubble. It can run a 8bit quant of GPT-OSS 120B, or 4bit quant of GLM-4.6 using only an extra 100-200W. That energy use comes out to about 100 Joules or 1/4 Wh per query and response, and is already competitive with the power efficiency of even Google's offerings. I think that people doing work in many professions with these offline tools alone could more than double their productivity compared to their productivity two years ago. Furthermore if the usage was shared in order to lower idle time, such as 20 machines for 100 workers, the initial capital outlay is even lower. Perhaps investors will not see the returns they expect, but it is difficult to image how even the current state of AI doesn't vastly change the economy. There could be significant business failures among cloud providers and attempts to rapidly increase the cost of admission to closed models, but there's essentially no possibility of productivity regressing to a pre-AI levels.
- tyleo 1y agoI have an M4 MBP and I also think Apple is set up quite nicely to take real advantage of local models. They already work on the most expensive Apple hardware. I expect that price to come down in the next few years. It’s really just the UX that’s bad but that’s solvable. Apple isn’t having to pay for each users power and use either. They sell hardware once and folks pay with their own electricity to run it.
- hiq 1y agoYour comment made me realize that there's also the benefit of not having to handle the hardware depreciation, it's pushed to the customer. And now Apple has renewed arguments to sell better machines more often ("you had ChatGPT 3-like performance locally last year, now you can get ChatGPT 4-like performance if you buy the new model"). I know folks who still use some old Apple laptops, maybe 5+ years old, since they don't see the point in changing (and indeed if you don't work in IT and don't play video games or other power-demanding jobs, I'm not sure it's worth it). Having new models with some performant local LLM built-in might change this for the average user.
- notepad0x90 1y agoThe AI "bubble" won't burst just like the "internet bubble" didn't burst. the dotcom bubble was a result of investors jumping on the hype train all at once and then getting off of it all at once. Yes, investors will eventually find another hype train to jump on, but unlike 2000, we have tons of more retail investors and AI is also not a brand new tech sector, it's built upon the existing well established and "too big to fail" internet/ecommerce infrastructure. Random companies slapping AI on things will fail but all the real AI use cases will only expand and require more and more resources. OpenAI alone just hit 800M MAU. That will easily double in a few years. There will be adjustments,corrections and adaptations of course but the value and wealth it generates is very real. I'm no seer, I can't predict the future but I don't see a massive popping of some unified AI bubble anytime soon.
- ACCount37 1y agoPeople don't have the grasp of just how insane that "800M MAU and still growing" figure is. CEOs would kill people with their own bare hands to get this kind of userbase. OpenAI has ~4B of revenue already, and they aren't even monetizing aggressively. Facebook has an infinite money glitch, and can afford to put billions in the ground in pursuit of moonshots and Zuck's own vanity projects. Google is Google, and xAI is Elon Musk. The most vulnerable frontier lab is probably Anthropic, and Anthropic is still backed by Amazon and, counterintuitively, also Google. At the same time: there is a glut of questionable AI startups, extreme failure rate is likely - but they aren't the bulk of the market, not by a long shot. The bulk of the "AI money" is concentrated at either the frontier labs themselves, or companies providing equipment and services to them. The only way I see for the "bubble to pop" is for multiple frontier labs to get fucked at the same time, and I just don't see that happening as it is.
- hiq 1y ago> they aren't even monetizing aggressively That's one of the issues with the current valuation: it's unclear to me how many of the 800M MAU will stick to ChatGPT once it monetizes more aggressively, especially if its competitors don't. How many use ChatGPT instead of Claude because the free version offers more? How many will just switch once it doesn't anymore? OpenAI is already at a 500B valuation; the numbers I could find indicate that this number grew 3x in a year. One can reasonably ask if there's some ceiling or if it can keep on growing indefinitely. Do we expect it to become more valuable than Meta or MSFT? Can they keep raising money at higher valuations? What happens if they can't anymore, given that they seem to rely on this even for their running costs, not even speaking about their investments to remain competitive? Would current investors be fine if the valuation is still 500B in a year, or would they try to exit in a panic sell? Would they panic even if the valuation keeps growing but at a more modest pace?
- andy99 1y agoCell phones have been through how many generations between the 80s and now? All the past generations are obsolete, but the investment in improving the technology (which is really a continuation of WWII era RF engineering) means we have readily available low cost miniature comms equipment. It doesn’t matter that the capex on individual phones was wasted. Same for GPUs/LLMs? At some point things will mature and we’ll be left with plentiful, cheap, high end LLM access, on the back of the investment that has been made. Whether or not it’s running on legacy GPUs, like some 90s fiber still carries traffic, is meaningless. It’s what the investment unlocks.
- crote 1y ago> At some point things will mature and we’ll be left with plentiful, cheap, high end LLM access, on the back of the investment that has been made. Okay, and? What if the demand for LLMs plummets because people get disillusioned due to the failure to solve issues like hallucinations? If nobody is willing to buy, who cares how cheap it gets?
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoLLMs are less of a miraculous new world than the hype machine says they are, but they are not nothing. They have some actual uses. It will fulfill those uses. There will be some people who still buy.
- dcre 1y agoThe idea that people will suddenly decide LLMs are useless after two years of exponential growth in usage is a fantasy.
- Havoc 1y agoThe demand for tokens isn't going anywhere, so the hardware will be used. ...whether it is profitable is another matter
- deadbabe 1y agoI think we will enter a neo-Luddite era at some point post-AI boom where it suddenly becomes fashionable to live one’s life with simple retro style technology, and social networks and much of the internet will just become places for bitter old people to complain amongst themselves and share stupid memes. Social media was cool when it was more genuine, but it got increasingly fake, and now with AI it could reach peak-fake. If people want genuine, what is more genuine than the real world? It will become cool for you to become inaccessible, unreachable, no one knowing your location or what you’re doing. People might carry around little beeper type devices that bounce small pre-defined messages around on encrypted radio mesh networks to say stuff like “I’m okay” or “I love you”, and that’s it. Maybe they are used for contactless payments as well. People won’t really bother searching the web anymore they’ll just ask AI to pull up whatever information they need. The question is, with social media on the decline, with the internet no longer used for recreational purposes, what else are people going to do? Feels like the consumer tech sector will shrink dramatically, meaning that most tech written will be made to create “hard value” instead of soft. Think anything having to do with movement of data and matter, or money. Much of the tech world and government plans are built on the assumption that people will just continue using tech to its maximum utility, even when it is clearly bad for them, but what if that simply weren’t the case? Then a lot of things fall apart.
- firefoxd 1y agoI wrote a similar article (not published yet), but my conclusion was "Free GPUs for everyone" or at least cheap ones. Right now H100 are very specialized for the AI pipeline, but so were GPUs before the AI boom. I expect we will find good use for them.
- cheschire 1y agoIs folding@home still a thing?
- pizzly 1y agoIf there is a downturn in AI use due to a bubble then the countries that have built up their energy infrastructure using renewal energy and nuclear (both have decade long returns after the initial investment) will have cheaper electricity which will lead to a future competitive advantage. Gas powered power plants on the other hand require constant gas to convert to electricity. The price of gas would become the price of electricity regardless and thus very little advantage.
- novok 1y agoI think this article was written with AI, it has a that contrastive sentence signature. And if you can't think of what to do with massive amounts of matrix multiplying compute, that's pretty sad IMO. Not to mention the huge amount of energy demand probably creating a peace dividend in energy generation for decades to come. We have also gotten a lot of open models we wouldn't of had without the AI boom competition, not mention all the other interesting stuff coming out in the open model world. Typical pessimist drivel.
- mallowdram 1y agoChina has already won the game. We developed media and wealth management as invididualistic, they approached the problems institutionally and built infrastructure at the pivotal point renewables became affordable. They made an army of technical engineers, we scattered innovation in comp sci/VC acceleration/automation and sat on our asses as asset managers. AI works in secluded modules like robotics and revision. As a general tool it's navel gazing energy sink. AI was a lure we fell for and wasted money and energy while smart players like Apple and China knew their reality.
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- wmf 1y agoI think several of the assumptions are wrong. GPUs will last much longer after the crash because there won't be any money available to replace them. You can either keep running the existing GPUs or throw them in the trash. The GPUs will keep running as long as they can generate enough revenue from inference to cover electricity. Tokens will become very cheap but free tokens might go away. AI datacenters aren't that specialized. You can buy a 1 GW datacenter and put 300 MW of equipment in it and sell 2/3 of the gas generators. You'll have to buy some InRow units. The AI stack isn't as proprietary as it sounds. GPU rental exists today and it's pretty interoperable. Ironically, Nvidia's moat has made their GPUs a de facto standard that is very well understood and supported by whatever software you want.
- nuc1e0n 1y agoCenturies ago, the building materials for castles was taken by the locals and reused to build their houses with. Those data centres have a lot of sheet metal in them. Air conditioning units as well. The upgraded power networks around those data centres will alter where people live too. Oh and there's a lot of electric motors with copper wire in all the fans and hard drives those computers have.
- paulhodge 1y agoAI is too useful to fail. Worst case with a bust is that startup investment dries up and we have a 'winter' of delayed improvement. But people aren't going to stop using the models we have today.
- becomevocal 1y agoAn opportunity to provide more accessible compute for non AI tasks via new methods of utilizing GPUS?
- Bogna 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- capestart 1y ago[dead]