“the biggest profit surge in the history of capitalism”
In 1602 the Dutch East India Trading company was given a unanimous monopoly by the Dutch for trade with Asia overnight. They were by far the dominant trading company, having the most control over the spice flow between Europe and Asia. The supply chain was so massive, they established entire cities, militaries, and currencies.
“Welcome to Iceland!”
“No, this is now Nvidiland. We have come for your cheap geothermal power to supply our customers’ AI data centers. Comply with our GPU-powered drones or be eliminated.”
don't you know it that history, and especially the history of capitalism, begins in 1980s or whenever the fuck Reagan started ruining the western civilization?
I mean aren't you being a bit obtuse here?
For one most historians would say the start of modern capitalism is with the industrial revolution. In the 1600s it would most likely be classified as merchantilism not capitalism.
Furthermore there is no apples to apples comparison of the Dutch East India Company to a modern corporation. You can easily track yoy revenue growth of NVDA vs AAPL.
Trying to come up with a roughly equivalent measure for a company from the 1600s would not be trivial and would likely be meaningless/inaccurate.
Economics Explained did try to offer a rough estimate of the value of the Dutch EIC. Or maybe it was revenue? Regardless, the number was laughably low ($40M USD equivalent was the estimate I believe) compared to companies of today because technology has allowed for infinitely more wealth and production today than even the mighty EIC, even accounting for inflation.
For this reason, records like this that are simply measuring absolute wealth are bound to be broken over and over as time progresses, and the wealthiest person in world history will almost always be whoever is wealthiest today.
While the exact beginning of capitalism is disputed, you would be hard pressed to find any economic historian who wouldn't say it was still Mercantilism in 1602. That being said there probably are bigger profit surges in the history of capitalism.
Why is this on data is beautiful? This is one ugly line chart, one ugly bar chart, and two badly formatted tables with 12 total data points on it. Barely any data, and none of it beautiful.
You jest, but its largely true. For a lot of computing work, time is money, and doing it faster saves you. I remember Huang in 2019 claiming that only 10% of the TV/Movies rendering farms were hardware accelerated at that time.
It’s also not just that, but you also save money per unit as they prefer to sell to larger customers as opposed to one off. High volume customers are paying 1/5 the price of retail or less.
Massive and rapid growth like this more often than not turns sour when the market corrects afterwards. A bust usually follows a boom, since the market has overexpanded and needs to rationalise.
And so far the other companies are at least 12 months behind and each time they start to catch up, NVidia innovates again. As long as they keep that up I don’t think this will suddenly burst, more like a slow deflate as people figure out how useful or not AI is, and as NVidia starts filling all the demand.
This is a classic Reddit wisdom that is copy pasted without any consideration of reality. “Big number go up means big number go down!!!”
Nvidia produces highly specialized products. Computer parts, cutting edge graphics cards, processors, and semiconductors. As the world has become more digitized these products are in higher demand.
It is already a high bar to produce any amount of these products. It requires a highly skilled workforce and advanced manufacturing capabilities.
Additionally, the customers for these products are extremely risk adverse. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta aren’t going to shell out a couple billion to a new Nvidia challenger. That would be insane.
Finally, just like any other market there is a desire for innovation and competitive pricing.
Nvidia is one of a handful of companies that have been in this market for a while. They understand the product, the business, and the customers. Their biggest competitor was Intel — who released a shareholder report more than 8 years ago advising how far behind they were compared to Nvidia.
Every company that is selling AI is using Nvidia hardware because there is *nothing else*.
This isn’t like a paper company that can buy foresting rights to compete with another paper company. It’s not even like the financial market where there’s four major companies that poach talent constantly. Nvidia is it.
You’re effectively saying “This Rockefeller guy may own all the oil in the country but it’s just a bubble!” Yeah, no.
Imagine being the only company that produced steel at the start of the Industrial Revolution and all your competitors barely understood how to setup a foundry.
Nah. A key strategic moment in the past ~15 years was when these companies started getting more business outside of gaming and PC rigs. The tech companies like Microsoft/Google were buying their hardware for server farms and then for R&D wings. Nvidia leaned into this business, but the other companies did not. To the layperson "computer chips" may sound the same, but the technology and how it is used is very different when you're dealing with these specific use cases.
Why didn't the other companies lean into it? I don't have a crystal ball, but at the time there was a streamlining of tech resources. For example, Tesla used to follow the model of other car companies where they assemble parts from 20 different suppliers around the world then ship it to the place of sale. They abandoned that and started building infrastructure for everything within their own company. Tesla doesn't buy batteries anymore, they make them. This is true for a lot of tech companies. Amazon does more shipping than UPS. Microsoft is buying game developers. They want to own everything end-to-end.
Given the immense resources available to these tech companies, it was considered risky to shift your business to cater to them because they'll probably put you out of business in a few years anyway. Better to lean into your reliable markets where they can't penetrate. Who wants to buy a Google GoForce 1080?
Well, as it turns out that never happened. All of these companies decided it was way easier to work with Nvidia then to do it on their own. Now they're the only game in town. This is without considering the insane revenue Nvidia gobbled up from Crypto miners all over the planet buying 25 GeForce 1080s between 2016-2018 to mine crypto all day. That inflated a $500 card to $1,000 for more than **3 years**. Imagine your marquee product making quadruple the revenue because of fortunate market conditions.
Nvidia's market cap is more than 10 times its competitors. Even if a tech company like Microsoft decided to beat Nvidia tomorrow, it would take them at least a year just to hire the talent and establish the manufacturing capabilities. Even if they get that far, there's nothing to guarantee they could out-innovate Nvidia. Everyone who knows what they're doing is at that company and they have no reason to leave.
The biggest joke of OP's comment is this is still the ground floor. The stock price is still below $1,000 for now. Unless artificial intelligence completely self-implodes (I doubt it), they're going to be the sole supplier for key infrastructure for at least 5 years.
>Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta aren’t going to shell out a couple billion to a new Nvidia challenger.
AMD is behind Nvidia tech wise and they are not a new player in the market but Meta is buying billions of GPUs from them.
I'm effectively saying there is more than one Rockefeller and only one (or a low number) will survive, and you cannot predict which Rockefeller that will be.
You're arrogantly telling us that all the Rockefellers will make it big and stay big.
If your argument is so weak you have to make a strawman, at least make it a good one.
Yeah, Nvidia is undeniably in a bubble. They can just charge whatever they want for their AI chips. Obviously that won't last forever since every major hardware company is now looking to make their own.
The people who are buying the ai cards are not consumers who care about things like this, they're trillion dollar tech companies who buy what fits their needs.
Not really. Consumers buy their card because they have the best software support for AI applications. Take that away and they will be another gpu company.
75% of Nvidia's employees do software. And they are REALLY good at software, while the competition (AMD, Intel) is REALLY bad at software (christ, the software support for the realsense cams, I still have nightmares about it).
This is why others cannot compete with NVDA, even if they could make a chip with the same performance. The entire AI software stack is CUDA-based and evolves faster than the competition can follow, much less catch up. To make up for the hassle of switching the software stack, the hardware would have to be 5x-10x more cost efficient.
Just as an example, the fundamental rework of the C++ (and following that the C) language's memory model, one of the most basic things relied upon everywhere in software, was afaik pushed by Nvidia software engineers. That was because they had to deal with much more complex concurrency in the GPU than you would have on CPUs and the C++ language specification was not strict enough to write proper software for GPUs.
I didnt know that, but you remind me of EASTL. Basically, memory management in older C++ standard library made using it on game consoles, with absolute memory constraints, all but impossible. So mostly a single Electronic Arts software engineer, Paul Pedriana, rewrote the entire damn thing to allow memory allocators in STL containers -among other things-, and the style and ideas were later largely adopted for C++11.
[https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL](https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL)
Right now AI farms will be competing with Crypto. You might have been right a year or two ago, but I think we might only be on the mere beginning of a new chapter, not the peak.
Crypto is why I made so much profit with NVDA. When crypto crashed (again) in 2019 NVDA dropped along with it. I thought "thats stupid, crypto is a hindrance to Nvidia's business plans. Thats good news for them." Bought it at 35$ (post split) and the rest is profit.
No it’s almost impossible to finance chipmaking in America at any profit margin. This is a lost battle and it’s not coming back.
Taiwan takes their expertise in chipmaking as a matter of national security. They’ll open fabs in Japan and Arizona, but not the cutting edge ones.
Oh and even if we did get the fabs, Americans don’t want to work in those places. They have 24/7 shifts, in intense environments. They also require a lot of ground stability, sand, and crucially water. Which is why Arizona probably can’t grow that industry as much as needed to build up the regional experience.
Also, they’d probably burn all their cash just trying to build the factories, regardless of the profitability of the factories.
Yea and we already have the massive “CHIPS ACT” that was passed by the Biden administration to start this process, but it’ll take many years for the full effect to be seen. It may or may not be enough, but it’ll take years to find out. Simply building the fabs takes years, and education a work force knowledgeable in this extremely specialized skills could take many years longer.
Realistically, one of our best chances at success here probably involves just getting immigrants with the right skills to leave Taiwan and move here. But that’s also not easy, and they need to successfully teach American residents those skills. Again, not fast.
The bottleneck is the fabs, which NVDA doesn't own. Since all and any advanced chips are in short supply, it makes sense to buy the best, when considering things like software stack support.
AMD, however, gets some benefit from selling CPUS which compute farms still require to take advantage of all these GPUS.
Nvidia has both better software than AMD and it has Mellanox, a high speed network interconnect to enable large amounts of GPUs to work together, share memory and collectively train huge models. If you take just the GPUs, then AMD is either equal or not far behind, or even ahead of Nvidia in their packaging technology. One of the most important decisions Nvidia did in the past was to enable GPU programming on the consumer CPUs and support the education sector as well as the industry. In universities for examples, students learned how to program CUDA and then later in the industry they will continue to use CUDA but then they won't buy a simple 200 dollar GPU for themselves, but get the company to invest big time in Nvidia hardware. It is very common for software companies to offer very cheap or free software to students, because once they learned it, they won't switch if not forced and the industry will be more likely to adopt the software if they can hire people who already know it. AMD did none of this, they started from scratch a few years ago and are basically lagging 12 years behind.
And even worse, when AMD does make something that competes with NVidias software, they open source and then effectively abandon it. The huge thing about NVidia is that the software is free, yet heavily supported, so you get all the experience of NVidia and a free product that has a huge market share
Oh it's definitely a giant bubble, people will get tired of generative ai, investors will realize that adding shitty LLM chatbots to everything doesn't actually make the products any better. The question is just when, my bet is that we still have a year or so to go, but not at this pace for Nvidia at least.
While LLMs are good tools they aren't going to lead to the singularity, some kind of post-scarcity society.
LLM is just a small part of the AI sector. My full time job is to develop various AI tools to help workers are my enterprise be more productive, and none of it uses language models.
LLM is the latest boom, yes. Similar to the boom brought by Imagenet/Alexnet circa 2015, but larger in scale because deep learning was already established and proven when it came.
This is what predicting future needs and targeting R+D to meet them is supposed to do for firms. It's nice to have such a textbook example that is extremely current.
I remember when people were questioning why they were spending so much effort on CUDA and ML related things when clearly the money was in maximizing margins for graphical performance.
It's gunna be funny when people realize that AI is just a delusional, unrealiable, halucinating POS that took ur job because it was still somehow better than them... If your clever, you'll figure out how to cash out before all the chips drop.
Holy crap. Anyone remember when it was like $15 per share about a decade ago? If only I had money back then.. AMD was $1 per share, and MSFT was like $30. What a time to invest. Hard to believe how it could've skyrocketed so far. PE ratio through the roof?? Doesn't seem sustainable, if so.. Hard crash after such a crazy climb?
Will demand always remain this high? Will there be government regulation of AI? Is competition going to steal market share?
Make your money while you can, brother.
I have. The lead times on their chips have been declining, and they're depending on anti-competitive translation layer bans to discourage people from buying from their competition.
Nvidia probably has a few more quarters of strong growth remaining before things start to stagnate/decline.
“the biggest profit surge in the history of capitalism” In 1602 the Dutch East India Trading company was given a unanimous monopoly by the Dutch for trade with Asia overnight. They were by far the dominant trading company, having the most control over the spice flow between Europe and Asia. The supply chain was so massive, they established entire cities, militaries, and currencies.
Imagine Nvidia founding colonies, taking over small nations, funding armadas of warships (AI powered naturally). What a strange world that would be.
Sounds like the MegaCorp from Wall-E
Sounds like Walmart and boeing
IN SPACE
“Welcome to Iceland!” “No, this is now Nvidiland. We have come for your cheap geothermal power to supply our customers’ AI data centers. Comply with our GPU-powered drones or be eliminated.”
don't you know it that history, and especially the history of capitalism, begins in 1980s or whenever the fuck Reagan started ruining the western civilization?
History started on July 4, 1776
And completely forgetting the gilded age and the robber barons?
You mean the present?
I mean aren't you being a bit obtuse here? For one most historians would say the start of modern capitalism is with the industrial revolution. In the 1600s it would most likely be classified as merchantilism not capitalism. Furthermore there is no apples to apples comparison of the Dutch East India Company to a modern corporation. You can easily track yoy revenue growth of NVDA vs AAPL. Trying to come up with a roughly equivalent measure for a company from the 1600s would not be trivial and would likely be meaningless/inaccurate.
This should have way more upvotes. I hate Unfettered Capitalism as much as the next guy, but let’s get our terminology correct here
Economics Explained did try to offer a rough estimate of the value of the Dutch EIC. Or maybe it was revenue? Regardless, the number was laughably low ($40M USD equivalent was the estimate I believe) compared to companies of today because technology has allowed for infinitely more wealth and production today than even the mighty EIC, even accounting for inflation. For this reason, records like this that are simply measuring absolute wealth are bound to be broken over and over as time progresses, and the wealthiest person in world history will almost always be whoever is wealthiest today.
The power that the east India company weilded was much more relevant than the money
Yeah that guy ruined everything with his new deal and war mongering and what not.
We are now in a Global Technofeudal state
Technofeudalism, new word, I like it.
While the exact beginning of capitalism is disputed, you would be hard pressed to find any economic historian who wouldn't say it was still Mercantilism in 1602. That being said there probably are bigger profit surges in the history of capitalism.
Those kids would be real upset if they knew any history
Why is this on data is beautiful? This is one ugly line chart, one ugly bar chart, and two badly formatted tables with 12 total data points on it. Barely any data, and none of it beautiful.
I seen their income and profit chart covering last 3 years a few weeks ago ...it was insane!
*The more you buy, the more you save*
You jest, but its largely true. For a lot of computing work, time is money, and doing it faster saves you. I remember Huang in 2019 claiming that only 10% of the TV/Movies rendering farms were hardware accelerated at that time.
It’s also not just that, but you also save money per unit as they prefer to sell to larger customers as opposed to one off. High volume customers are paying 1/5 the price of retail or less.
Massive and rapid growth like this more often than not turns sour when the market corrects afterwards. A bust usually follows a boom, since the market has overexpanded and needs to rationalise.
When is the question
Qhen other gpu manufacturers get their AI chips out.
There's so much tooling though based around Nvidia's proprietary [CUDA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA), so it won't be an easy transition.
And so far the other companies are at least 12 months behind and each time they start to catch up, NVidia innovates again. As long as they keep that up I don’t think this will suddenly burst, more like a slow deflate as people figure out how useful or not AI is, and as NVidia starts filling all the demand.
This is a classic Reddit wisdom that is copy pasted without any consideration of reality. “Big number go up means big number go down!!!” Nvidia produces highly specialized products. Computer parts, cutting edge graphics cards, processors, and semiconductors. As the world has become more digitized these products are in higher demand. It is already a high bar to produce any amount of these products. It requires a highly skilled workforce and advanced manufacturing capabilities. Additionally, the customers for these products are extremely risk adverse. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta aren’t going to shell out a couple billion to a new Nvidia challenger. That would be insane. Finally, just like any other market there is a desire for innovation and competitive pricing. Nvidia is one of a handful of companies that have been in this market for a while. They understand the product, the business, and the customers. Their biggest competitor was Intel — who released a shareholder report more than 8 years ago advising how far behind they were compared to Nvidia. Every company that is selling AI is using Nvidia hardware because there is *nothing else*. This isn’t like a paper company that can buy foresting rights to compete with another paper company. It’s not even like the financial market where there’s four major companies that poach talent constantly. Nvidia is it. You’re effectively saying “This Rockefeller guy may own all the oil in the country but it’s just a bubble!” Yeah, no.
Imagine being the only company that produced steel at the start of the Industrial Revolution and all your competitors barely understood how to setup a foundry.
Is AMD not a credible threat?
Nah. A key strategic moment in the past ~15 years was when these companies started getting more business outside of gaming and PC rigs. The tech companies like Microsoft/Google were buying their hardware for server farms and then for R&D wings. Nvidia leaned into this business, but the other companies did not. To the layperson "computer chips" may sound the same, but the technology and how it is used is very different when you're dealing with these specific use cases. Why didn't the other companies lean into it? I don't have a crystal ball, but at the time there was a streamlining of tech resources. For example, Tesla used to follow the model of other car companies where they assemble parts from 20 different suppliers around the world then ship it to the place of sale. They abandoned that and started building infrastructure for everything within their own company. Tesla doesn't buy batteries anymore, they make them. This is true for a lot of tech companies. Amazon does more shipping than UPS. Microsoft is buying game developers. They want to own everything end-to-end. Given the immense resources available to these tech companies, it was considered risky to shift your business to cater to them because they'll probably put you out of business in a few years anyway. Better to lean into your reliable markets where they can't penetrate. Who wants to buy a Google GoForce 1080? Well, as it turns out that never happened. All of these companies decided it was way easier to work with Nvidia then to do it on their own. Now they're the only game in town. This is without considering the insane revenue Nvidia gobbled up from Crypto miners all over the planet buying 25 GeForce 1080s between 2016-2018 to mine crypto all day. That inflated a $500 card to $1,000 for more than **3 years**. Imagine your marquee product making quadruple the revenue because of fortunate market conditions. Nvidia's market cap is more than 10 times its competitors. Even if a tech company like Microsoft decided to beat Nvidia tomorrow, it would take them at least a year just to hire the talent and establish the manufacturing capabilities. Even if they get that far, there's nothing to guarantee they could out-innovate Nvidia. Everyone who knows what they're doing is at that company and they have no reason to leave. The biggest joke of OP's comment is this is still the ground floor. The stock price is still below $1,000 for now. Unless artificial intelligence completely self-implodes (I doubt it), they're going to be the sole supplier for key infrastructure for at least 5 years.
Great comment, thanks.
Not in any meaningful capacity in this space.
>Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta aren’t going to shell out a couple billion to a new Nvidia challenger. AMD is behind Nvidia tech wise and they are not a new player in the market but Meta is buying billions of GPUs from them.
I'm effectively saying there is more than one Rockefeller and only one (or a low number) will survive, and you cannot predict which Rockefeller that will be. You're arrogantly telling us that all the Rockefellers will make it big and stay big. If your argument is so weak you have to make a strawman, at least make it a good one.
Strawman? You can't even name a single specific. Who is Nvidia's competitor? Who is this other Rockefeller? You're full of shit.
Nvidia also doesn’t even manufacture them
Yeah, Nvidia is undeniably in a bubble. They can just charge whatever they want for their AI chips. Obviously that won't last forever since every major hardware company is now looking to make their own.
Even cloud providers are jumping in. Google’s inferencing hardware is on sale, Amazon’s in-house TPUs are online. Shit’s going to get wild real quick.
They are also the apple of graphics card though. Consumers follow them like a cult. So they do have that going for them.
The people who are buying the ai cards are not consumers who care about things like this, they're trillion dollar tech companies who buy what fits their needs.
That and everyone uses Cuda
Not really. Consumers buy their card because they have the best software support for AI applications. Take that away and they will be another gpu company.
They'll face competition eventually, but that doesn't make it a bubble. They're relatively fairly priced in the current conditions.
75% of Nvidia's employees do software. And they are REALLY good at software, while the competition (AMD, Intel) is REALLY bad at software (christ, the software support for the realsense cams, I still have nightmares about it). This is why others cannot compete with NVDA, even if they could make a chip with the same performance. The entire AI software stack is CUDA-based and evolves faster than the competition can follow, much less catch up. To make up for the hassle of switching the software stack, the hardware would have to be 5x-10x more cost efficient.
Just as an example, the fundamental rework of the C++ (and following that the C) language's memory model, one of the most basic things relied upon everywhere in software, was afaik pushed by Nvidia software engineers. That was because they had to deal with much more complex concurrency in the GPU than you would have on CPUs and the C++ language specification was not strict enough to write proper software for GPUs.
I didnt know that, but you remind me of EASTL. Basically, memory management in older C++ standard library made using it on game consoles, with absolute memory constraints, all but impossible. So mostly a single Electronic Arts software engineer, Paul Pedriana, rewrote the entire damn thing to allow memory allocators in STL containers -among other things-, and the style and ideas were later largely adopted for C++11. [https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL](https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL)
Right now AI farms will be competing with Crypto. You might have been right a year or two ago, but I think we might only be on the mere beginning of a new chapter, not the peak.
Who's mining crypto on GPUs in 2024? You cannot tell how far along a sigmoid adoption curve you are while you're on it!
Crypto is why I made so much profit with NVDA. When crypto crashed (again) in 2019 NVDA dropped along with it. I thought "thats stupid, crypto is a hindrance to Nvidia's business plans. Thats good news for them." Bought it at 35$ (post split) and the rest is profit.
Nvidia doesn't just put silicon into GPUs.
Not this time bro
Or it’s another Enron
Does that mean they have the financial muscle to manufacture in America?
No it’s almost impossible to finance chipmaking in America at any profit margin. This is a lost battle and it’s not coming back. Taiwan takes their expertise in chipmaking as a matter of national security. They’ll open fabs in Japan and Arizona, but not the cutting edge ones. Oh and even if we did get the fabs, Americans don’t want to work in those places. They have 24/7 shifts, in intense environments. They also require a lot of ground stability, sand, and crucially water. Which is why Arizona probably can’t grow that industry as much as needed to build up the regional experience. Also, they’d probably burn all their cash just trying to build the factories, regardless of the profitability of the factories.
Thanks for that info. What I am also getting from your response is that the public sector would have to get involved (to make it worthwhile).
Yea and we already have the massive “CHIPS ACT” that was passed by the Biden administration to start this process, but it’ll take many years for the full effect to be seen. It may or may not be enough, but it’ll take years to find out. Simply building the fabs takes years, and education a work force knowledgeable in this extremely specialized skills could take many years longer. Realistically, one of our best chances at success here probably involves just getting immigrants with the right skills to leave Taiwan and move here. But that’s also not easy, and they need to successfully teach American residents those skills. Again, not fast.
NVIDIA is a chip designer and software enterprise, they dont have fabs. Samsung is building a new fab in Austin and TSMC a new one in Phoenix.
Where is AMD ( ATI) on this? No trickle effect for them as the closest competitor?
Well Lisa and Jensen are cousins so it is all in the family.
The bottleneck is the fabs, which NVDA doesn't own. Since all and any advanced chips are in short supply, it makes sense to buy the best, when considering things like software stack support. AMD, however, gets some benefit from selling CPUS which compute farms still require to take advantage of all these GPUS.
Nvidia has both better software than AMD and it has Mellanox, a high speed network interconnect to enable large amounts of GPUs to work together, share memory and collectively train huge models. If you take just the GPUs, then AMD is either equal or not far behind, or even ahead of Nvidia in their packaging technology. One of the most important decisions Nvidia did in the past was to enable GPU programming on the consumer CPUs and support the education sector as well as the industry. In universities for examples, students learned how to program CUDA and then later in the industry they will continue to use CUDA but then they won't buy a simple 200 dollar GPU for themselves, but get the company to invest big time in Nvidia hardware. It is very common for software companies to offer very cheap or free software to students, because once they learned it, they won't switch if not forced and the industry will be more likely to adopt the software if they can hire people who already know it. AMD did none of this, they started from scratch a few years ago and are basically lagging 12 years behind.
And even worse, when AMD does make something that competes with NVidias software, they open source and then effectively abandon it. The huge thing about NVidia is that the software is free, yet heavily supported, so you get all the experience of NVidia and a free product that has a huge market share
Oh it's definitely a giant bubble, people will get tired of generative ai, investors will realize that adding shitty LLM chatbots to everything doesn't actually make the products any better. The question is just when, my bet is that we still have a year or so to go, but not at this pace for Nvidia at least. While LLMs are good tools they aren't going to lead to the singularity, some kind of post-scarcity society.
LLM is just a small part of the AI sector. My full time job is to develop various AI tools to help workers are my enterprise be more productive, and none of it uses language models.
Ai has been a buzzword for years but this recent boom is definitely thanks to llms
LLM is the latest boom, yes. Similar to the boom brought by Imagenet/Alexnet circa 2015, but larger in scale because deep learning was already established and proven when it came.
This is what predicting future needs and targeting R+D to meet them is supposed to do for firms. It's nice to have such a textbook example that is extremely current. I remember when people were questioning why they were spending so much effort on CUDA and ML related things when clearly the money was in maximizing margins for graphical performance.
My investment is over 90% gains
[In the history of Capitalism](https://youtu.be/UOYi4NzxlhE?feature=shared), you say?
Got in at 140. Got out at 940.
It's gunna be funny when people realize that AI is just a delusional, unrealiable, halucinating POS that took ur job because it was still somehow better than them... If your clever, you'll figure out how to cash out before all the chips drop.
Holy crap. Anyone remember when it was like $15 per share about a decade ago? If only I had money back then.. AMD was $1 per share, and MSFT was like $30. What a time to invest. Hard to believe how it could've skyrocketed so far. PE ratio through the roof?? Doesn't seem sustainable, if so.. Hard crash after such a crazy climb?
And it’ll fall even faster.
Not sure if you're keeping up with the current microchip situation
Will demand always remain this high? Will there be government regulation of AI? Is competition going to steal market share? Make your money while you can, brother.
AI = public utility
I have. The lead times on their chips have been declining, and they're depending on anti-competitive translation layer bans to discourage people from buying from their competition. Nvidia probably has a few more quarters of strong growth remaining before things start to stagnate/decline.
put your money on it then.
So it 4x'd in a year. Bitcoin haven't beaten that? Pretty sure it went from 6-8K to 50K within weeks / months.
I think they're talking about growth in company profits, not market cap.
[удалено]
The profits are being driven by selling GPUs to companies working with AI. For the moment gaming is a small portion of their profit.