• schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    More confirmation that the AI Death Threats is designed to do two things:

    1. Encourage regulations that, in effect, hand control of future development to big players.
    2. Slows development just as development is becoming more expensive and returning fewer performance gains at prices nobody wants to pay (the S curve reminding us that, yes, it exists).

    Either of those situations would slow the sales of chips, so of course Jensen is going to argue against it.

    The business press does not pursue the truth, it is an easily manipulable forum to raise stock prices.

    • Buckshot@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      My view is regulatory capture is as an existential requirement for them. Otherwise at some point we’ll be running open models on our phones and won’t need them.

      Not for nvidia though, always going to need chips

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Right. Everyone has been selling AI-enabled phones and computers for a few years now… Now that AI companies are actually charging real money for tokens, people are automatically routing their questions to their local AI for the cost of electricity, and saving their queries to OpenAI, etc., for the harder questions.

        The valuations are absolutely bonkers. OpenAI is just cloud computing which every single major customer they have asking themselves every quarter if they should just go in-house.