Nvidia hits $3T market cap on back of AI boom
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
And do you think all of Nvidia’s customers throwing money at data centres full of GPUs will cause the current generation of AIs (LLMs etc) to deliver greater and greater returns, sufficient to make Nvidia worth this current valuation and more?
WalMart’s market cap is $540billion. Would you rather own one Nvidia, or WalMart six times over?
this is true for previous generations of deep learning but still not clear for current GenAI wave.
With Walmart, it's hard to speculate what ground-breaking future potential they might have that isn't already known.
or short gain opportunity with goal to quite before crash.
My ultimate worry is that Nvidia is becoming so overcooked now that it could pull the whole of the Nasdaq down when it blows, and that won’t be good for any of us.
It's already happened the other way.
50% of all S&P 500 growth comes from just 5-companies (Nvidia).
Or said differently, 495-companies can only match what just 5-companies contributed (which Nvidia is 1 of those 5).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-5-stocks-contributed-alm...
I'm actually quite bearish on AI on the very long term (and as a trained philosopher, I don't buy into the whole AGI nonsense), but I do think AI will redefine how we interact with our computers/devices in the short-to-medium term. These days, everyone's too enamored with the generative aspect (which is, for the most park, bunk), and for whatever reason ignoring the way more value-generating aspects (synthesis, categorization, summarization, validation/invocation, etc.).
One of them is that we only have language with which to build an AI - language and symbols. Yet these nevertheless capture absolutely nothing about what it is to perceive and understand, on a human level, so yeah. It’s kind of what Searle was getting at - symbolic outputs and translation based on rules doesn’t get you intelligence, even if it produces a system that looks as if it is intelligent.
There’s also that we have an intersubjective attunement to others that is pre-linguistic. Ultimately “meaning is use” which is a pithy take on later Wittgenstein- there’s nothing in language which means anything at all. So it’s not that it wouldn’t be able to use language or concepts better than we do, it’s that we change with the AI and don’t accept them - particularly as they start to become uncanny or unpredictable.
There really is something to sentience that we all know that cannot be reduced to language or machinery.
Our language about machinery, and intelligent machinery, is full of usage mistakes and categorical errors that we overlook, but which are more serious when analysed.
We are complete beings - my intelligence is part of a system, and it makes no sense to abstract it out of that system in order to nail it down.
“Pain” cannot be reduced down to or captured in language. Suffering is part of our intelligence and we’d be nowhere without it.
So ideas kind of like that and more.
AGI would have to suffer to become general enough to warrant the use of the word general.
Jo Cameron doesn't have general intelligence? This seems absurd. Intelligence is orthogonal to phenomenology and affective states. People aren't worried about AGI because it might have a Cartesian theater, the worry is that it might be more competent than humans and put humans out of a job. The semantics of whether it "truly" has intelligence is irrelevant.
>Suffering is part of our intelligence and we’d be nowhere without it.
It might be part of our intelligence, but why would it need to be part of machine's intelligence? GPT4 is already beating humans at theory of mind tasks[1], and I doubt that it suffers. Our suffering is an evolutionary stroke of bad luck. It has nothing to do with intelligence itself, and it would have been better if we had evolved some other way that didn't need it.
I’d not heard of Jo Cameron but one outlier, for me, wouldn’t hyper-negate the whole idea out of existence. A huge amount of what I suffer with is not physical pain.
It's not just physical suffering that she's supposedly immune to. She's also immune to all psychological suffering as well. And she is married, has kids, and is perfectly healthy. If she's in fact the real deal (I don't know this myself, but I haven't seen anyone debunking her) then dismissing her as an outlier would be a remarkable form of complacency. If the effect can be understood and replicated, suffering will become fully as needless as it deserves to be, with its final eradication mourned probably as much as the death of smallpox.
> If LLMs are beating humans in theory of mind tasks, your theory of mind is incorrect.
Or, LLMs have better theory of mind than most humans do, which is the finding of that study. Is it metaphysically impossible? If your mental image of how LLM cognition works is the same type of expert system that Searle was writing about back in the day, it's refreshingly bizarre to read how LLMs appear to work:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/god-help-us-lets-try-to-und...
Where is the Chinese Room in this? I don't see one. Just a lot of complex and vague conceptual associations mediated through neural connections. Whether or not these models are conscious or have an inner life, they seem to be doing just fine understanding concepts.
>We are complete beings - my intelligence is part of a system, and it makes no sense to abstract it out of that system in order to nail it down.
The more I read rebuttals of these kinds, the more I think AGI believers might be right.
Can you elaborate on why you believe AGI is nonsense?
> ignoring the way more value-generating aspects (synthesis, categorization, summarization, etc.)
Summarization is one of the most common applications of LLMs I see. I expect if I knew more precisely what you meant by the other two we'd find examples of those, too. Everybody is trying to find out what these tools can do and throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. People are doing exactly what one would expect them to do.
John Searle is much smarter than I am and he elaborated plenty on this in the 80s. (But more saliently, I think it's absurd to think our brains, or brains in general, do polynomial curve fitting in any meaningful sense.)
> Summarization is one of the most common applications of LLMs I see.
This is true, though the workflow is extremely cumbersome.
> People are doing exactly what one would expect them to do.
I don't disagree, I think people are moving in the right direction (albeit slowly). Maybe the generative aspect is just more awe-inducing rather than "oh hey this thing creates calendar events out of any date," even though the latter would be way more useful.
Why would an AI need to use the same mechanisms as a human to think? Most machines we create are quite different in character from their natural counterparts (what bird has a propeller?)
Thanks for chiming in as I'm completely unfamiliar with Searle.
I don't believe in immaterial human souls, therefore self-aware AGI appears to be a near inevitability of technological advancement from my perspective. To suggest that it's impossible is, in my opinion, absurd.
The argument that any non-materialist position (panpsychism, substance dualism, monadism, etc.) must "believe in ghosts" is comically reductive. Metaphysics is a thing, you know. So is moral philosophy. I mean, heck, so is logic. In all these subfields, arguing that their respective first principles are purely materialist is an uphill battle. I get a feeling that post-2000s materialism is basically logical positivism 2.0 (and we know how that ended).
> It's not a claim that AGI is nonsense in principle
You're playing a semantic game here; but in any case, understanding is a function of intelligence, so (working backwards), you're actually shooting yourself in the foot, anyway.
"Ghost in the machine" is from Ryle. It's quite apropos here.
> You're playing a semantic game here; but in any case, understanding is a function of intelligence, so (working backwards), you're actually shooting yourself in the foot, anyway.
I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make.
To recap, you said that:
1. You don't believe in this AGI nonsense.
2. Searle elaborated on why AGI is nonsense in the 80s.
And I am clarifying for you that:
1. Searle did not elaborate on why AGI is nonsense in the 80s. He doesn't claim that AGI is nonsense at all.
2. His arguments are specific to the methods that were called AI, and a bunch of technical and philosophical claims about those methods and about the human mind, at the time he was writing. Ditto for Dreyfus.
What you can get Searle to commit to is the idea that human-like AGI can't be a program executed on computers as we think of them today. He's an ultra-materialist, like Ryle, and thinks the physical reality of brains is essential to the minds they produce. To make a mind, you need to make a brain. (In other words, he thinks "Lena" is nonsense: https://qntm.org/mmacevedo.)
So he would say that ChatGPT is no closer to being human-like AGI than ELIZA was, since it's no closer to having something like a human brain, and if all you meant by "the whole AGI nonsense" is that ChatGPT isn't a step toward human-like AGI, then he'd agree. But he wouldn't say that human-like AGI itself is nonsense, precisely because he doesn't believe in ghosts.
And yes, by "AGI nonsense" I meant that "ChatGPT isn't a step toward human-like AGI" since the main chatter these days is about how ChatGPT/Claude/etc. is the harbinger of AGI. I think Searle's argument is particularly strong because you don't even have to believe in something "spooky" happening in our heads. In fact, I'd probably extend "AGI nonsense" to "AGI is flat out not possible" but that's more of a hunch and the full argument invokes things like the non-computability of various physical phenomena.
>and as a trained philosopher, I don't buy into the whole AGI nonsense
It's hard to imagine Socrates using this form of argument.
> To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death of one's own free choice, death at the proper time, with a clear head and with joyfulness, consummated in the midst of children and witnesses: so that an actual leave-taking is possible while he who is leaving is still there
(Twilight of the Idols, 1888)
That really is Nietzsche’s angle on it if you care to go looking rather than cite him at me to disprove what I said. I think it’s in Will to Power but it’s been a while. You’ll also notice throughout that Nietzsche isn’t a dialectical thinker. He doesn’t go round in circles trying to find the antithesis of his polemics – he’s calling it how it is for him.
Edit: some of his perspective on Socrates is in Twilight - Google: Nietzsche Socrates Buffoon.
No, but in general I don't think anything justifies that valuation with 60 billion in annual revenue. Someone pointed out that Nvidia's market cap is now comparable to the entire German or Japanese stock market and I'd rather have an economy the size of a few trillion. American stock prices look like Japan in the 80s when the land value of the Imperial Palace was as high as California's economy.
And as you point out the revenue to market cap seems like we’re getting silly. It’s even making me wonder whether Jensen and his brains trust are going to start massaging their own figures, because any less-than-stellar results next quarter could really kill the party. And if Nvidia really is turning into a bubble, it could pop the whole of the Nasdaq for a while.
Yes, but the thing is: it takes time to write the software. We had proof of concepts for some serious game-changing things written and working over a year ago, but organizationally it takes a long time to write and deploy the things and get them into production. Even if LLM's didn't get any better than they are right now, there are still years' worth of ground-breaking improvements we could roll out but those will take time to write and deploy the software and reshape the business processes.
It has always been the case. As a society we are still very far from having harnessed the full power of 90s era computers. Companies routinely pay hundreds of workers and even executives, to do things that computers are better at doing. For instance: managing plannings in big organizations.
It was out of an old movie. Folders and coffee cups absolutely everywhere. Walls of well-used filing cabinets. The directors office was comical, you had to look over the piles if you were sitting. 15 year old computers were there but second fiddle.
Honestly it was charming and made me nostalgic. It was also a reminder of exactly what you’re saying. Millions worth of NYC rentals run by a paper-driven org. The future is distributed unevenly indeed.
CS and educated tech people in general are in a hyper-educated bubble where it is normal to talk about distributed systems and algorithmic complexity, but there are an awful lot of smart people without those backgrounds.
A lot of knowledge that's traditionally branded as "technical" is IMO generally useful, but overlooked. For example basic queuing theory in of itself is exceedingly useful. Nothing fancy, just the steady-state, blocking probablity, what chance of how many "clients", etc.
I witness very large (gov) organisations lacking any kind of in/out flow modeling, statistics, etc. No dashboards, no insights. Just going by feel. Everybody is "overworked", but if you dare to say it might be a good idea to start quantifying some of those parameters you'll be in a very silent, very awkward room and will never be asked anything ever again. I wish I was kidding.
AI? Let's start previous-century level process automatization and professionalization first and we'll see in a few decades if we're anywhere near ready for the next step.
Edit: It's btw interesting that most (high-level) managers at these orgs are all alphas, like history and political science majors. I guess it's no wonder they are trying to solve production problems through "consensus" and endless meandering, but it's also frustrating.
Yes. The impact is hype and the valuation comes from other big tech companies like Google and Microsoft
> Is it changing your life?
Not really. I barely use it anymore except when there’s no internet (phi-3 was useful as an unreliable alternative to stack overflow while on a flight)
I think Nvidia is a solid company with an overblown valuation that will eventually stabilize lower but maintain its status as a major “tech” company.
> Would you rather own one Nvidia, or WalMart six times over
Walmart has many competitors and is generally easy to replace, especially when considering the international market. Nvidia is somewhat unique in the world, so yes, Nvidia should probably be valued more
Long-term, the value of AI (LLMs) as a productivity tool is massive, but if the delusional thinking around things like AGI continues (and the fear-mongering of Ai Is ToO DaNgErOuS), the major players will suffocate that potential and be humbled.
It hallucinates all the time... It's a toy. Impressive, but still a toy.
Variations of this story repeat over and over and over again throughout the decades of tech.
After the pullback, given some time, AI will realize significant real world value and the overall market will be far larger (15-20 years out). That process takes longer than the exuberance suggests early on.
Nvidia will pull back when that spending decline happens (yes, there will be a drop in their sales, they'll hit a wall and it'll go south for a while). The question is where the wall is at. They're speeding at it like Cisco was during the hype of the dotcom boom (and Cisco was growing at a crazy rate quarter over quarter, accelerating, which is a particularly unsustainable event). Tons of AI customers will die off to go along with the big spenders freezing and or reducing their spending.
AI won’t need huge amounts of computing resources. It will need moderate amounts of computing resources.
The huge amount of computing resources seen today are the result of immature technology that uses resources inefficiently. As the technology improves, the capability-per-FLOP will increase and AI will move on-device.
https://epochai.org/blog/algorithmic-progress-in-language-mo...
Computation may be increasing, but that is a statement about the short-term not the long-term.
If we want to predict the future then we care about: how many capabilities can you fit on a phone-sized computer? And I believe that the answer is: a lot.
Feels like they will eventually converge unless some big breakthrough happens that only benefits the large models.
At the same time, there's no evidence that even at the scale of GPT-4 they are seeing diminishing returns. I don't see why that would be the case, either, so long as there's more data to feed into the models. IMO the cliff will occur once the models become large enough that no amount of naturally sourced data is enough to saturate them, but, well, we aren't even at 1% of the Internet yet.
Llama 3 has likely costed billions to Meta and most of it went to Nvidia. What are you talking about. As much as what you think inference costs, it is tiny in comparison to training the model.
Inference requires 1/3rd the FLOPs than training per token and current models are already trained on entirety of internet. You can generate 3 times the internet for 1 training run.
Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to continue grabbing as many GPUs as feasible for the foreseeable future, at least until LLMs and other GenAI models have been determined to have plateaued without much doubt.
now realize there’s 15 other models you haven’t heard of trained on the same brand’s hardware that didn’t work out / weren’t impressive enough to release.
you are literally describing Jevons paradox in action - the more efficient and practical you make the tech, the more of it we will consume. And sure, inference is easy, but training is still uniformly done on nvidia hardware, and the “software” is an incredibly non-trivial moat. AMD has been trying for literally 15 years and they’re on their third or fourth ground-up attempt to displace it… the most recent (ROCm) being over 5 years old at this point and still utterly non-competitive. Leave it to HN to imply that millions of person-hours of ecosystem building can basically be replicated in a long weekend.
(also, reminder that ollama3 has a 70b model too… and it’s a lot better than the 8b one still!)
It can't and won't last. There's just too much margin for players not to compete or design their own chips. The only question for capitalizing is how to time your shorts.
At $360 a year, the productivity benefit doesn't need to be huge to justify the cost, lets say you would probably want to so $500-1,000/yr in expense reduction.
I can say for certain that I have found roughly enough benefit myself in the past year for various tasks such as writing, presentations and the like. Nothing earth shattering mind you, but time has been saved. The question is, does this scale across an organization? Does everyone get leverage out of Copilot if you give it to them, or do only a fraction of advanced early-adopters? Also does the benefit really hit your bottom line, which may be harder to measure accurately.
Personally, I think it is a toss-up right now, but I suspect many businesses will place their bet anyway. For a 1,000 person organization $360k isn't nothing but also not their biggest expense or even software expense. Likely a rounding error on revenue.
Most businesses will roll out Copilot and/or similar tools broadly for at least a couple of years before starting to really question the ROI. It is pretty clear that the hype and FOMO on this is real. It would likely be better to be the executive who tried AI and found it wanting then to be the one that waited on the sidelines if it turns out to have a big impact.
The hype cycle is just getting warmed up on this.
You also have to factor in the cost of ai's failure modes. Though it might be difficult to put a number on it.
Self-driving could easily become one of the pins that bursts Nvidias bubble if we don’t see spectacular improvements.
The new AI has the same problem as AI for self driving- you can't trust it.
CEO: "Hey, so there's this thing about the product that I've been hyping as the killer widget it'll get, ohh for about ten years now. Well, we still didn't manage to solve the widget problem, so I'm going to start a new widget company that I own so I can sell us the widget."
Shareholders & Board: "You're doing what??!? That's the most illegal thing we've ever heard!"
I’ve actually seen literally none of that from proponents, like I’ve probably seen 100x as much strawmanning and uncharitable summary from opponents. Essentially nobody thinks we should hand the kingdom over to an unsupervised savior machine, like, can you show me a candidate from a major political party (doesn’t have to be US, but let’s say >10% electoral share) who supports such a platform? Or a ceo who supports moving leadership decisions for his company over to an AI?
As far as I can tell, that whole thing is a strawman cut whole-cloth from the imaginations of detractors. I’d be delighted to hear counterexamples of the sort I discussed but I frankly don’t think they really exist outside some feverish imaginations.
Everyone just got so busy pointing out that it’s not a good idea that they failed to notice that, in fact, nobody thinks it’s a good idea yet. And it’s a self-reinforcing cycle because obviously there are lot of other people who agree that it is not, in fact, a good idea, so they feel very supported and emboldened to point it out constantly, such that they’ve forgotten that nobody argues that in the first place.
I’ll be the one to say it: it isn’t a good idea to grind down the mountains and fill in the oceans and pave over the entire earth’s surface to drive rocket-powered hypercars at unfathomable speeds. Was anyone serious actually proposing that? No, but really you’d have to be crazy to take that position, wouldn’t you? It would be super harmful if we let people just argue unhindered that we should do that. So really it’s a public service, right? Don’t let the crazies grab the wheel, vote against paving the earth.
This whole buzz does have shades of self-driving cars back in 2016.
This is literally the strategy that people like Elon Musk are pursuing in their quest for AGI before the end of the decade. It is how he plans to have full self driving solved by August 8 so he can start selling Robotaxi accounts.
Stock valuation is based on speculation. I don't think I understand the question.
I think that's the wrong question: "impact" is necessary but not sufficient for "valuation", as the latter also requires you to not have much competition driving down your margin, and there's a lot of competition in AI software.
NVIDIA, being the metaphorical shovel-seller, can probably justify current valuations from current or near-term hardware sales… but I'm not sure the people spending the money to buy NVIDIA hardware to train their own models can justify those expenses, which means I'm expecting NVIDIA's sales to collapse when the "not invented here" bubble collapses and everyone becomes willing to use an existing off-the-shelf AI.
> Is it changing your life?
Yes:
1. LLMs by being the easy first step on side-projects I'd otherwise not have time to get into
2. Google Translate in general
Definitely a killer app though. Same as Google maps is a non-AI killer app.
The five most valuable companies in the world are, in order: Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and Amazon. All very tied to software, or the hardware which software runs on. Walmart is worth less than Facebook, Broadcom and TSMC.
If the past few decades have taught us anything, it is that software is a very good business to be in. Microsoft is the most valuable company in the world for a reason.
Imagine asking these questions in the early 90's when "the web" was just getting started. Or when bitcoin was $0.10.
These are the sorts of headlines people make fun of later on, “The internet is just a fad.”
People learned their lessons and are way more willing to make bets on the future. Right now, clearly this is AI.
Some technologies are great, pioneering even, and full of potential, and still flop in the market.
Bitcoin at $71k is hardly a flop.
That was a term coined by stephenson during the early web, 1992. Virtual worlds are still extremely popular.
As for bitcoin itself, people and companies have hyped it for their own benefit, but bitcoin itself isn't a company, and therefore isn't hyped. It is one technology that lives on its own and survives primarily because of the will of the people that choose to participate in it.
But no matter what all the companies will do with AI, they will all need AI computing. So it's not so difficult to predict that Nvidia will be a clear winner. Nvidia has had competition for 8 years in the AI space. Their market share today is more dominant than it ever used to be.
Probably, Nvidia has already won because of 5 million CUDA developer who will hardly switch to other platforms. It's basically Windows SDK and Apple/Android SDK reloaded.
They may not. Like I said before, there have been many very innovative technologies that did not see uptake by the general public as was expected (VR, cryptocurrency).
AI could be the next cloud computing that every company pays for but which eventually commoditized down to a relatively low margin business. It could be something Nvidia strangleholds and milks money out of for decades with little competition like Facebook with social media, or it could be something people don't reach for as much as we thought they would. We don't know yet
How much is the internet worth today?
According to the mainstream media, AI is supposed to replace me / make me obsolete within 5 years.
1. A competitor might actually make the visionary future a reality, and so, falling behind is a corporate existential crisis
2. They’re nowhere close to making their vision a reality. I think companies knowingly continue to sell a healthy dose of BS to their customers in terms of AI capabilities, but I also think they’ve fooled themselves with their own arrogance. For example, Google learning in realtime with the rest of the world that their AI generated search results are sometimes outputting nonsense.
This is why I value NVIDIA over all software companies. I’m confident the latter group has hyped everything so much that most will eventually fail to meet expectations. NVIDIA just gets to sit back and watch it all play out.
I do think they’ll eventually deserve a $3T valuation some years down the line as models continue to improve and some industries truly get revolutionized.
I would prefer that companies providing utility would be rewarded. I expect , however, that companies enabling administrative control (via AI , software, monopolization, surveilance, market capture) will actually be rewarded.
So in a better world Walmart should be a higher value, since they are feeding and supplying the entire country with food, tools, consumer goods, luxuries, furniture, etc.
But in reality Nvidia will be rewarded for enabling more administrative control.
> Refering - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40593858
The GTX 1080 (one of the greatest GPU of all time) was $599 in 2016 ($782 today)
The RTX 4080 was $1199 in 2022 ($1284 today)
Sure you can always wait for ever, there will be a 5080 Super one day too
But people are expecting exactly this from AMD to make happen. AMD is a HW company. You can clearly see it in their roadmaps, in their mindset and in their communication. If you look at Nvidia and their publications then it's 80% about SW solutions and only 20% HW. Even GTC 2024 where Blackwell was released, was >50% about SW solutions presentation.
However, AI competition will be won with SW, not with HW. Enterprises need consultancy, guidance and help in properly training their data and putting it to use. Buying HW is pointless for them because they have no clue about AI. They first have to learn so they need consulting. This is a job for SW companies, not for HW companies. And interestingly, Nvidia is right there at the front and has not only direct engagements but partnerships with all large IT consulting companies.
I wonder, which HW would a company deploying Nvidia Enterprise AI SW suite use? AMD maybe?
1- https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/05/28/nvidia-ceo...
Jensen started Nvidia 31-years ago.
What’s not in the list is Oracle.
But in all reality it still is.
Isn't the point of being wealthy that you can buy friends, that this is exactly the sort of relationships the wealthy prefer?
It's not like anybody is forcing him to keep the money or the shares.
It's the second most valuable company in the world behind Microsoft, which is worth about 5% more. I would guess a lot of Microsoft's Azure capex is spend on Nvidia equipment. Windows and Intel? Azure and Nvidia!
Did you know? Every gold rush in history has ended.
If you have a shovel factory that burns millions of dollars a day to sell as many shovels as you can, and you're not prepared for people to give up on digging for gold, you're going to very suddenly start burning your profits.
And AMD and Intel might wake up from coma too.
Though Nvidia is trying to pivot towards more cloud and software solutions. Let's see.
What shovels are Apple and MSFT buying to make their own chips?
I mean, who is making Apple's and MSFT's AI chips? I'd buy their stock.
That being said, Nvidia is particularly well positioned to continue reaping the reward of serving the high-performance-compute market. CUDA is yet-unparalleled, and NPUs/TPUs are still struggling to make a case for themselves. If we get another cryptocurrency-style bum-rush on number crunching computers, I don't think anyone except Nvidia will be poised to immediately benefit. General-purpose GPU compute is in short supply on consumer systems, everyone wants the cloud and the cloud wants Nvidia.
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/7800.jpeg
When you invent a whole new class of device, of which you have the best and market-leading implementation, often that class device isn’t going to stop being useful, and if you are good at your job then you often won’t have to relinquish having a large share of the resulting market.
There’s really a whole little epistemological bubble that’s forming here, with the people who insist that everyone else must only like it because they think it’s general AI, therefore there must be a collapse coming, because it’s impossible there’s any real value delivered, etc. And the alternative hypothesis is… you’re wrong and there’s something here, and people don’t particularly have blinders on about the potential anymore than you do, they just see the value where you don’t. It’s the same group of people who were butthurt about IP infringement and deepfakes and all the rest who are the most absolutely sure everyone else is an idiot who believes it’s general AI and it’s all a big bubble that’s going to come crashing down. It’s become an article of faith that’s stronger and more real than the fake sentiments it purports to oppose.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html?_r=0
He claims that Cisco lost all its value because their HW was commoditized. I mean in some ways, sure, but the fall in value was almost entirely driven by the DOTCOM bubble bursting.
There is also a claim that networking equipment is easy, "it's just moving data around". Moving data around is what a computer does. LLM's and GPU's are just moving data around.
Shorting because it's dropping and then covering when it's going up how you end up losing money. By the time you see the short opportunity, or the opportunity to cover, it's too late.
It's just like buying because something is going up and selling when it starts going down. It's a recipe for buying high and selling low.
There were some parts that genuinely surprised me in how good it was. For example, I drove through a construction zone where there were cones on the ground diverting cars out of the painted lines on the road, and FSD followed the cones and drove over the lines without complaint. It handled my neighborhood road that is kind of narrow and has cars parked on both curbs while going around turns flawlessly.
That said, when making turns without a traffic light, it's SUPER cautious, enough to absolutely infuriate anybody driving behind you. And it STILL struggles sometimes when one lane turns into two. It will ride the middle until it's basically driving on top of the line, then SWERVE into one of the lanes.
I don't see our compute appetite going anywhere generally. But 90% of that will be for AI compute. Nvidia without that is, well... rekd.
(I'm an ignorant fool just reflecting what I've seen. If someone has better perspective, please enlighten me.)
Compute appetite is infinite.