To be honest this just sounds like a bunch of talking points stuck together, can you write a credible argument based on known case-law/precedent/etc... if you have a legal angle to critique?
A market failure is a market failure.
There’s a big lobby on HN who want to defend or minimize or justify leaving market failures be, which is weird given they’re really bad for most people on HN, it’s a free country.
But let’s call it what it is.
They made a good product. The competition is responding too slowly. And they got lucky with this crazy (in a good way) AI boom. I don't see how this could possibly be outlawed or why you would even want to. It will resolve itself on its own given enough time.
The government as a big costumers could demand these things, even without having a low. The military should demand these things to be open for various reasons.
I think Nvida can still make plenty of money in such a world.
In cases where an interface has absurdly high value for society if its a standard, the government could also 'buy' that and open it up. Just like they do with other infrastructure.
One could make the argument that the x86 interface should be public domain as it amounts to infrastructure that most of society builds on. How such a thing would exactly work is of course up for some debate. But the concept of the government 'liberating' common interfaces makes sense from a society perspective.
How would that have stopped Nvidia from dominating the AI market?
>The government as a big costumers could demand these things, even without having a low. The military should demand these things to be open for various reasons.
I agree that governments should use APIs with multiple competing implementations (or one truly open source implementation) where possible. This could make a difference in some cases, but I doubt it would have had a big impact in this particular case as demand for GPGPU is overwhelmingly coming from the private sector.
>In cases where an interface has absurdly high value for society if its a standard, the government could also 'buy' that and open it up. Just like they do with other infrastructure.
Agreed, but is there a legal reason why AMD and others are not allowed to create a clean room implementation of CUDA? Haven't they done exactly that with ZLUDA (which they have now defunded)?
I thought not supporting CUDA was more like a failed strategic move by competitors to prevent CUDA from becoming an industry standard.
I think we agree on all the relevant principles. I just don't see how any of these principles make a big difference in this particular case.
Also, I don't see the Nvidia situation as particularly problematic. They are not too entrenched to unseat. Some of their biggest customers (themselves huge oligopolists) are shaping up to be their biggest competitors.
Most of AI processing will be inference, not training. Bringing the costs down is absolutely key for broad AI use. My bet is that the hardware margins will end up being slim.
The likely height of big-cap tech regulation was the regulated monopoly of ATT/Bell Labs/Western Digital all through the 20th century.
I prefer the outcomes in that era to the present status quo.
You can agree or disagree, and disagreeing is simple: “I prefer these outcomes because…”. I welcome such disagreement. And FWIW I’m not one of the many people who downvoted you: but they were justified in doing so because you moved a comparison of policies and their outcomes into a more abstract space of 1-bit generalizations, e.g. “talking points” vs “law/precedent”. I gave examples, it’s public record and trivially Googleable.
You didn’t fail to understand my point, you didn’t like it and took a cheap shot.
Let me (start to) Google that for you:
https://www.sec.gov/enforce/sec-enforcement-actions-fcpa-cas...
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings-alpha
https://www.csoonline.com/article/567531/the-biggest-data-br...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/24/doj-files-second-antitrust-l...
https://www.channele2e.com/news/big-tech-antitrust-regulator...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/technology/justice-depart...
... scads more law stuff and a decade ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
... scads more law stuff and a decade ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
And I never mentioned 'not citing concrete examples.', if your confused about the ask, I'll repost it: "can you write a credible argument based on known case-law/precedent/etc... "
i.e. Can you write down the actual argument that you propose to advance?