Apparently DeepSeek’s new model has been delayed due to issues with the Huawei chips they’re using. Maybe raw floating point performance of Chinese chips is competitive with NVIDIA, but clearly there’s still a lot of issues to iron out.
It was also frustratingly predictable from the moment the US started trying to limit the sales of the chips. America has slowed the speed of Chinese AI development by a tiny number of years, if that, in return for losing total domination of the GPU market.
That’s not to say I’m brave enough to short NVDA.
At least for me, Google has some real cachet and deserves kudos for not losing money selling Gemini services, at least I think it is plausible that they are already profitable, or soon will be. In the US, I get the impression that everyone else is burning money to get market share, but if I am wrong I would enjoy seeing evidence to the contrary. I suspect that Microsoft might be doing OK because of selling access to their infrastructure (just like Google).
A major reason Deepseek was so successful margins wise was because the team heavily understood Nvidia, CUDA, and Linux internals.
If you have an understanding of the intricacies of your custom ASIC's architecture, it's easier for you to solve perf issues, parallelize, and debug problems.
And then you can make up the cost by selling inference as a service.
> Amazon and I think Microsoft are also working on their own NVIDIA replacement chips
Not just them. I know of at least 4-5 other similar initiatives (some public like OpenAI's, another which is being contracted by a large nation, and a couple others which haven't been announced yet so I can't divulge).
Contract ASIC and GPU design is booming, and Broadcom, Marvell, HPE, Nvidia, and others are cashing in on it.
A long time ago I worked as a contractor at Google, and that experience taught me that they don’t like things that don’t scale or are inefficient.
My opinion, the problems for NVIDIA will start when China ramp up internal chip manufacturing performance enough to be in same order of magnitude as TMSC.
Wont it be enough to just solder on a large amount of high bandwidth memory and produce these cards relatively cheaply?
Perf is important, but ime American MLEs are less likely to investigate GPU and OS internals to get maximum perf, and just throw money at the problem.
> solder on a large amount of high bandwidth memory and produce these cards relatively cheaply
HBM is somewhat limited in China as well. CXMT is around 3-4 years behind other HBM vendors.
That said, you don't need the latest and most performant GPUs if you can tune older GPUs and parallelize training at a large scale.
-----------
IMO, Model training is an embarrassingly parallel problem, and a large enough cluster leveraging 1-2 generation older architectures that is heavily tuned should be able to provide similar performance to train models.
This is why I bemoan America's failures at OS internals and systems education. You have entire generations of "ML Engineers" and researchers in the US who don't know their way around CUDA or Infiniband optimization or the ins-and-outs of the Linux kernel.
They're just boffins who like math and using wrappers.
That said, I'd be cautious to trust a press release or secondhand report from CCTV, especially after the Kirin 9000 saga and SMIC.
But arguably, it doesn't matter - even if Alibaba's system isn't comparably performant to an H20, if it can be manufactured at scale without eating Nvidia's margins, it's good enough.
Cerebras get their chipped fabbed by them. I assume Eucyld will have their chips fabbed by them.
If there's orders, why would they prefer NVIDIA? Customer diversity is good, is it not?
Money talks. Apple asked for first dips a while earlier (exclusively).
AMD are, Cerebras are, I assume OpenChip's and Euclyd's machines will be.
Sure, but in my example Apple got access exclusively for a few months to a newer node, which would make a world of difference if you compete in the same space.
I am a long time fan of Dave Sacks and the All In podcast ‘besties’ but now that he is ‘AI czar’ for our government it is interesting what he does not talk about. For example on a recent podcast he was pumping up AI as a long term solution to US economic woes, but a week before that podcast, a well known study was released that showed that 95% of new LLM/AI corporate projects were fails. Another thing that he swept under the rug was the recent Stanford study that 80% of US startups are saving money using less expensive Chinese (and Mistral, and Google Gemma??) models. When the Stanford study was released, I watched All In material for a few weeks, expecting David Sack’s take on the study. Not a word from him.
Apologies for this off-topic rant but I am really concerned how my country is spending resources on AI infrastructure. I think this is a massive bubble, but I am not sure how catastrophic the bubble will be.
The US is burning good will at an alarming rate, how long will countries keep paying a premium to be spied on by the US instead of China?
This country used to have congressional hearings on all kinds of matters from baseball to the Mafia. Tech collusion and insider knowledge is not getting investigated. The All-in podcast requires serious investigation, with question #1 being “how the fuck did you guys manage to influence the White House?”.
Other notes:
- Many of them are technically illiterate
- They will speak in business talk , you won’t find a hint of intimate technical knowledge
- The more you watch it, the more you realize that money absolutely buys a seat at the table:
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/goskagit.com/co...
(^ Saved myself another thousand words)
I mean. I think some of us knew this. There's a lot of issues with AI, some psychological, some are risk adverse individuals who would love to save hours, weeks, months, maybe years of time with AI, but if AI screws up, its bad, really bad, legal hell bad, unless you have a model with a 100% success rate for the task, it wont be used in certain fields.
I think in the more creative fields its very useful, since hallucinations are okay, its when you try to get realistic / look reasonably realistic (in the case of cartoons) that it gets iffy. Even so though, who wants to pay the true cost of AI? There's a big uphill cost involved.
It reminds me a lot of crypto mining, mostly because you need an insane amount to invest into before you become profitable.
Anyone who's listened to him (even those who align with him politically) for an extended period of time can't help but to notice so obviously so self interested to the point of total hypocrisy—the examples of which are too many to begin to even wanting to enumerate. Like—take the Trump/Epstein stuff, or the Elon/Trump fallout—topics he would absolutely lose his sh*t over if these were characters on the left. I find it hard to believe anyone actually ever took him seriously. Branding myself as a fan of his would just be a completely self-humiliating insult to my intelligence and my conscience IMO.
Their multiples don't seem sustainable so they are likely to fall at some point but when is tricky.
They've been trying really hard to pivot and find new growth areas. They've taken their "inflated" stock price as capital to invest in many other companies. If at least some of these bets pay off it's not so bad.
I'm open to considering the argument that banning exports of a thing creates a market incentive for the people impacted by the ban to build aa better and cheaper thing themselves, but I don't think it's as black and white as you say.
If the only ingredient needed to support massive innovation and cost cutting is banning exports, wouldn't we have tons of examples of that happening already - like in Russia or Korea or Cuba? Additionally, even if the sale of NVIDIA H100s weren't banned in China, doesn't China already have a massive incentive to throw resources behind creating competitive chips?
I actually don't really like export bans, generally, and certainly not long-term ones. But I think you (and many other people in the public) are overstating the direct connection between banning exports of a thing and the affected country generating a competing or better product quickly.
Apparently that was an issue for them when it came to hiring people to work at their US fabs as well.
That's just one of the ingredients that could help with chance of it happening, far from being "the only ingredient".
The other (imo even more crucial) ingredients are the actual engineering/research+economical+industrial production capabilities. And it just so happens that none of the countries you listed (Russia, DPRK, and Cuba) have that. That's not a dig at you, it is just really rare in general for a country to have all of those things available in place, and especially for an authoritarian country. Ironically, it feels like being an authoritarian country makes it more difficult to have all those pieces together, but if such a country already has those pieces, then being authoritarian imo only helps (as you can just employ the "shove it down everyone's throat until it reaches critical mass, improves, and succeeds" strategy).
However, it is important to remember that even with all those ingredients available on hand, all it means is that you have a non-zero chance at succeeding, not a guarantee of that happening.
South Korea might have the capability to play this game (North Korea certainly doesn't), but it hasn't really had the incentive to.
Which brings us to the real issue: an export ban on an important product creates an extremely strong incentive, that didn't exist before. Throwing significant national resources at a problem to speculatively improve a country's competitiveness is a very different calculation than doing so when there's very little alternative.
Lost months are lost exponentially and it becomes impossible to catch up. If this policy worked at all, let alone if it worked as you describe, this was a masterstroke of foreign policy.
This isn't merely my opinion, experts in this field feel superintelligence is at least possible, if not plausible. This is a massively successful policy is true, and, if it's not, little is lost. You've made a very strong case for it.
doing a lot of heavy lifting in your conjecture
I don't see myself there, but, given that even the faint possibility of superintelligence would be an instant national security priority #1, grinding China into the dust on that permanently seems like a high reward, low risk endeavor. I'm not recruitable via any levers myself into a competitive ethnostate so I'm an American and believe in American primacy.