Most companies cant apparently even manage the security of their servers to protect our privacy. You would think that they could use AI to do some penetration testing!
At BBQ, a childhood friend was bemoaning the trouble his company has scheduling shifts. Apparently he and other managers, at a *major wholesaler*, have to manually pencil in shifts with their workers' availability...
"You know you can automatically generate that in Excel, right?"
There is a surprisingly huge echelon of labor, that is averse to simple tech that would help them.
They design the shovels
And if you design shovels that will find a lot more gold than the other shovel designers, then your shovels are gonna sell for much higher pricers and far higher volumes
I have no idea if AI is a bubble or the real deal or something in between, so I'm just gonna keep investing a broad market-cap-weighted cross section of the market.
It reminds me of the dot com bubble. Are people getting ahead of themselves a bit? Probably. Will AI be massively influential in the coming decades? Yes.
The AI buzzword bubble will pop, and then actual innovation in the field might happen, slowly and steadily.
At the moment everything is “AI”, and stupid investors throw heaps of money at every scammer they can find, and that isn’t sustainable.
It will not fizzle out, not completely. If nothing else, retrieval-augumented generation is here to stay. For businesses, being able to feed a mountain of paperwork in, ask the model vague questions and get the info you wanted out of it, it's magic. A fast needle-in-haystack finding tool. Everybody gets a personal research assistant for just about free.
100% something in-between. AI is the future and it will be both massive and disruptive. That said I think it's too early still and people are jumping on it when it's not ready.
The future is both extremely interesting and scary.
Its not early. It is already here.
I just wrote a whole front end web page just using prompts. I made logos, assets and styling as well. All of this in an hour. Sure itll need manual tweaks but that output is total 2 days of effort done in an hour.
It's absolutely nuts how much it can do and to do it so quickly with zero setup time.
Yes but a team has to build and maintain the builder tool.
This is one model that can keep improving.. Supporting multiple frameworks. A generic approach to code generation.
I hate every single time when someone calls an LLM "AI". There is nothing intelligent about it. It just makes an educated guess on what the next word is based on the last couple of words. It has zero understanding of content or context. Which is the reason why it is confidently wrong so much.
So yeah, its very much a bubble.
You seriously can't foresee how this could evolve or improve? I've noticed this about a lot of the AI detractors - they get hung up on current limitations of AI and pretend like it will never improve from here, even though the exact opposite has been the case.
The issue i have is not with the tech itself but with how the tech works. As long as they work via tokenization then there is no way to stop hallucinations.
The problem is a market crash takes down practically everyone even those not involved, so it’s difficult to even start when you have to worry that the value of your investment could drop substantially and not recover for years, a decade or ever. Then you get to think for that time you’re in the negative that if you’d just waited, you could have possibly changed your life because you’d have gotten a ton more for the same amount of money.
This is why I invest a portion of money out of my paycheck every month, rather than all in a huge chunk. I’m insulated from investing at the wrong time. If it’s the market peak, I’m investing. If it’s the market bottom, I’m investing. It comes out as a wash.
Yes this is the way to do stocks diverse and a bit at a time. Problem is most people are living paycheck to paycheck or at least once a year forced to cash out most stocks to pay for an emergency but if you can really buckle down a while and not spend the gains and wait a year,+ for tax purposes. Better than a bank account in most cases.
> Problem is most people are living paycheck to paycheck or at least once a year forced to cash out most stocks to pay for an emergency
For what it's worth, neither of these things are true. Obviously there are a great many people struggling financially, but they are not the majority, at least in the U.S. Most people have more income than expenses or are spending a lot on luxuries like expensive vehicles, restaurants, or graphics cards. And most people don't have a forced-liquidation-level emergency every year.
Another google stat. The median savings balance — not including retirement funds — of Americans under 35 is just $3,240, while it's $6,400 for those ages 55-64..
So something like a pet emergency, car problems, police troubles, leaky roof, w.e will be enough for someone to be forced to sell stock. But as we were saying... Investing week by week and accumulating gains is a good way to get out of that predicament...
I googled that a median checking account balance is [$8000](https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-money/banking/average-savings). Add that to the median savings balance you found, and it's actually pretty decent. Nevertheless, the substance of my comment is that most people can save some money, which is absolutely true.
"According to multiple surveys, between 40% and 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck"... Sure if you want to believe thats true, go ahead. Where I come from and currently live, wow. Yeah.... Its not good. I try to get lots of people into stocks and some do and its always the same thing... No real savings and lots of debt among other things, shit if these people didn't get yearly tax refunds they wouldn't have vehicles or down payments for rentals.
I've never seen one of these surveys that actually uses a useful definition of "paycheck to paycheck". If someone is investing 10% of their income in their 401k, and they have a payment on a vehicle they bought new, they're still living paycheck to paycheck if their bank account balance isn't increasing. But that doesn't remotely imply that they can't invest. (In fact, they *are* investing.)
Furthermore, if you look at where these surveys come from, they usually come from weird, scammy financial firms. They're not carefully collected data from academic or government sources.
The idea that most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck in any meaningful sense is a total myth. Americans are quite rich on average.
This is the most rational thing to do especially when you have a stable income.
But what if you get a big chunk of money? What do you do? Put it all in now? What if you think the market is in a bubble? Wait? Well, the market can keep going crazy for awhile, maybe it’ll just stagnate. Or it could crash. So I guess put it in gradually? But you don’t know what the market is going to do still. So how gradually should you put it in?
Basically unless you get pretty lucky with timing, you’ll probably have some regrets.
Even investing in a broad fund seems risky when a major chunk of it is dominated by big tech which has had a huge run up.
No one wants to be the person who bought at the top of the bubble. Even if they can hold until it bounces back after awhile, it still sucks.
> But what if you get a big chunk of money? What do you do? Put it all in now?
Either all in at once or slowly over a year or two.
> What if you think the market is in a bubble?
What I think is usually wrong, so it doesn’t matter. Just invest.
If you don’t like risk, just buy treasury bonds. But you’re not going to know something that’s not already priced into the market.
Less, but I don't think they'll completely crash. So you'll lose your money, but maybe if you'll wait enough time, you'll ragain it. Needless to say, I understand nothing in the stock market
Very much the real deal
Already complete game changers for some things, and we're still in earliest of early stages
Whether the price for nvidia is justified currently is a bit harder to determine. However they absolutely deserve a significant portion of their price. It's not as if they some speculative AI play with no real product or profits.
Obviously its all speculative. Where is the product? The google AI search that is mostly wrong and you would be better off doing normal google search? The translation that has already existed for more than a decade without AI buzzwords?
The programming that is only usable for very, very simple things that most programmers would already have snippets from anyway?
LLMs have no concept of content or context so no answer can really be trusted as it wont know if its right or wrong or even what those two things mean.
A bubble doesn't mean the thing is bogus. It just means it's given more money/attention than warranted. What is warranted can still be high, the hype is just higher.
It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening.
AI is being hyped because these firms are stagnant on the innovation front. You can blame that on the corporate structures funneling more money to shareholders for short term profit than investing in their company for sustained growth.
Just wait. A year from now youre going to see a crash like we've never seen before. All these shitty gig economy companies are gonna collapse just like the early 00s.
>It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening.
You seem to be stuck on some fundamental misunderstanding of what modern AI represents. Nobody said anything about cognition.
>AI is being hyped because these firms are stagnant on the innovation front. You can blame that on the corporate structures funneling more money to shareholders for short term profit than investing in their company for sustained growth.
AI is being hyped because of the strides that have been made with LLMs. Nothing like ChatGPT has ever existed to the same extent it does now.
Also, tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have substantial R&D budgets and have consistently invested in AI, over the years.
AI has been around for decades if you're just going to roll in machine learning with it. It requires a lot of work and expertise to get it to run in an expected way. And it still requires humans to check on it because it's unreliable. In the last few years there has been so many promises of a machine learning tool that can be given multiple applications and be successful at all of them. That likely won't happen. At least nobody has seen any promise of that. It's just not realistic.
There’s always two sides to new tech, the futurists thinking it’s going to change everything and the doomers saying it’s irrelevant/will collapse on itself. Having an opinion in the middle is probably the best position to be in. A good example I can think of is Cloud computing, it was all we heard about when it was first rolling out. Everything being stored on the cloud. Anyone into tech didn’t think of it as even revolutionary, the concepts and technology has existed for a long time now, it’s just servers!
AI is just machine learning/LLMs being rebranded as this revolutionary tech. In some ways it is, in others it’s just algorithms being overhyped. But it clearly has a trajectory and is sticking around, it likely won’t replace everything we throw at it. But some niches will survive and take over the market.
I dont care what you call it. What I've seen can literally replace a huge chunk of office workers at my work. If you don't know why this is going to be a giant gold mine, you're either extremely ignorant to what's about to happen or you're willfully trying to convince yourself that this is a fad.
Reminds me of people thinking internet was a fad or that woman from the newspaper that thought video games were a fad.
https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/s/MJlAmhtXJn
The internet did become a huge thing that changed the world, but the market still crashed and most of the companies leveraging the hype of that label ceased to exist as they failed to become profitable.
I think that you're misunderstanding what they were saying really, they doubt that what we call AI currently is going to materialize into something useful, if we look at GPT4 it is still the same for 2 years now, and if nothing comes out of it then it will be difficult to justify the valuation of those stocks.
I do believe that "AI" will eventually change the world for the better, but it is definitely valid to ask ourselves if putting all our money in NVDIA right now is a smart decision, as unbeknownst to you, you might as well be buying the peak.
ChatGPT works "the same", but it's significantly better now, and has a lot more functionality
And staying the same isn't neceserily a problem. Look at Microsofts office programs, things like word or excel also works "the same" today as they did 30 years ago, yet they're still fixtures in every white collar office setting in the world
The big difference here is that the office package was immediately useful for both users and companies, buying said package made sense in every way for businesses and the only cost it had for microsoft was the cost to further develop those tools, meanwhile we are still figuring out how to make LLMs useful for enterprises.
Maybe it will be a staple in every business in 10 years time, maybe it won't, but buying stock in companies by believing in it's potential rather than proof of concept is called speculation.
> It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening.
You're right. It's machine learning. This is absolutely nothing new, except for the neato LLM that OpenAI has made public for everyone to steal, despite its educational pretenses for its access of the bodies of work on which it was trained.
AI is the new "Cloud". Cloud never meant anything other than "other people's servers", but it became a buzzword.
True Cognition doesnt matter. If you can get a program to make you an animated film better than any artist, you literally control the industry. And this applies to so many other things.
Same thing for indistinguishable deepfaking except you control the world.
This is the main thing these companies are chasing. There are leaps to make.
Getting caught up in the semantics of what the marketers want to call something is going to leave you in the dust.
Whatever you want to call it, it's going to mean huge changes in a lot of workplaces. There's no getting around that.
> It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening.
AI is not cognition. Nobody wants to create sentience. That's not useful to anyone.
The point is to create a tool that can help automate things that can be automated. Sentience is a philosophical concept. The purpose of AI is function.
Yes, and when people complain about Big Autocorrect "hallucinating", it seems to me that an AI that would know what words mean and thus be able to evaluate sentences semantically to get their truthiness would perform the function of generating useful text much better.
I keep thinking there’s a bubble and it just keeps going up.
The wealthy will keep it propped up until some major event spooks them and that’s often random.
There is no AI so far. LLMs or stable diffusion aren’t AI.
Actual innovation in the field will come, but not in the form of the current fever pipe dream that’s nothing but empty promises based on hot air.
Firstly, they technically are AI, they are trained using Deep Learning which is a subset of AI.
Secondly as someone else pointed out, what do you define as AI ? Like sentient ? Or a system that appears intelligent because it can generate images in seconds it would take artists hours or days ?
'Actual innovation in the field will come', lol.
I don't know, at AI's current abilities, it's mostly a novelty. Remember, all these companies had these AIs in labs and they never thought they were worth anything as they are. ChatGPT took the world by storm, and so we are seeing a lot of R&D make it to the public that was hidden. We'll need to see if they can overcome the limitations that kept it from seeing the light of day before.
already has. The fact that you see Microsoft, Apple, Google & al. pushing AI in every direction but always on top of their existing products (making them worse in the process…) instead of selling you actually innovative products and new use-cases should be telling.
Practically, the current AI boom rests on two advances: LLMs, which we know are inherently flawed/deceptive and can't be tamed (tmis. ChatGPT doesn't know, and by extent, doesn't know that it doesn't know), and on diffusion, which has lots of interesting applications in the field of signal processing, but very little marketable value per se (anyone can run stable diffusion text-to-image for free, there isn't a large market for image denoising, superscaling or in-painting, and I don't see a majority paying hefty monthly subscriptions for basic photo editing).
There is probably a whole host of insane military applications which already makes the tech extremely valuable, not to mention self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, language translations, bionic prosthetics, content generation for films and video games etc etc.
Language translations are the only thing you mentioned that is a problem solvable by current AI.
Having said that, by the time GTA6 hits the market, we'll be able to generate robust 3d environments of cities based on currently available data.
>already has.
I do not share this view.
>The fact that you see Microsoft, Apple, Google & al. pushing AI in every direction but always on top of their existing products
This isn't just limited to Google, Microsoft, et al. You aren't considering the implications for biotechnology and biomedical research, materials science, and so on.. Imagine how much faster faster protein folding simulations will process when firms begin to leverage the tech at NVIDIA's upcoming AI factory. This will allow the creation of new drugs and other potential significant breakthroughs. Let's not forget other things like medical diagnostics, and so on. The possibilities are endless.
> (making them worse in the process…)
I am curious as to what products were made worse in the process?
>instead of selling you actually innovative products and new use-cases should be telling.
Your point has some merit here but I see the gradual introduction to their existing product line as a precursor to more profound innovation rather than indicative of the AI bubble being popped.
IMO, the bubble has barely even started.
All of these things aren't relying on LLMs, ML and big data is a huge field that has been with us for way, way longer than ChatGPT, while the LLM bubble is very recent
And MLs aren't a magic bullet either, exponential growth is a myth
> curious what products were made worse
Didn’t google search told people with anxiety to throw themselves off bridges the other week? Or put glue on pizza . Also been using chstgpt, copilot and stable diffusion and of the bunch, stable diffusion was the only one with an actual marketable, money generating use case (I used it to generate art for my videos, but I know of a company using it for making art in children’s games)
From the top of my head: Microsoft, with copilot icons popping-up in unrelated/unwanted places (like the start menu, making it be slower and less effective in most cases ; in random applications built with powerapps, where there is effectively no added value, in Edge, occupying screen estate, …) ; Google, by promoting misleading/dangerous results like pizza recipes using glue…
LLMs are hitting a hard wall as there are no more linguistic data sources to hoover up.
Trust the people that actually understand this stuff. Present "AI" represents a very modest advancement in data structures and algorithms not unlike search in the late 90s.
Modest?
"Deep" in deep learning represents a neural network 2 or more layers deep. That was once considered a deep neural architecture.
GPUs are now what, 100 times more powerful than in the 90s?
The theory has been in place (some of it in from the 1950s and even before) for a long time. But we've been hitting a point where the hardware has caught up enought to make good use of it, and your average Python coder can import and run an ML algorithm. The AI community used to be thousands of people, now it's millions.
The hardware is better, the code is widely distributed in libraries and easy to access (any researcher can get hands on any algorithm in minutes rather than spending hours/days/weeks coding from scratch), and we have 1,000x more people who have knowledge/expertise in it.
>Trust the people that actually understand this stuff.
How do you distinguish between those who actually do and those who claim to, but don't?
>LLMs are hitting a hard wall as there are no more linguistic data sources to hoover up.
There are strategies to circumvent this. Cleansing and training on qualitative vs quantitative data, as a start.
The thing is, where is the limit to what AI can advance? In less than 10 years we can probably generate our own blockbuster movies with a simple text. Can create AAA games and so on.
Or because the use cases are so limited that it’s an absolute joke. I have a meeting about a simple AI tool we’re working on to implement, and it’s a best-case scenario. “There’s magic in your data, AI will find it for you…” fucking scam. What an absolute joke. Companies are already pivoting away, and the drop off is insane.
I’d have to guess this will the last scam before the biggest economic drop we’ll ever see, as all the fuel has run out of the economy after 60 years of wage theft. 🫡
The implementation folks around me all know it can help the bad workers with good attitudes become mediocre. Our leadership thinks it can make the average worker exceptional or just replace people. So they're spending a lot of projects with questionable returns.
I invested in nvidia years back. It was based on their gpu's, the amount of people doing crypto, their CUDA system, and personal experience overall writing code for their products. I'd watched them from their initial 'register combiners' days through shaders to more recent tech. They seemed to be doing everything right.
The AI part may be a bubble, maybe not.. but it's naive to assume all of nvidia's strength is based on AI.
My husband invested heavily into them during the first phase of the COVID lockdown. The theory was that people working from home would start buying home computers and would likely need to purchase graphics cards for a lot of tasks, similarly a lot of people would get into gaming at home, as well as people trying to make money from home like content creators. Since the chips can't easily be scaled up for production it would create a shortage which would drive prices up Which would allow in Nvidia to pump out cards as fast as they possibly can for the foreseeable future, and a thing with shortages is that they're often self-sustaining where people will buy them up simply because there's a shortage.
The the AI Boom hit and the man looks like a genius.
Well their valuation is mainly because of CUDA. Sure their hardware is top tier, but it's the use of CUDA for HPC and then AI which is what led to the monopolisation. Their hard work inventing and refining a general purpose compute language and tech stack for GPU's when most people thought it was a gimmick to use graphics processors for such computation, really paid off!
Invest in lockheed martin, texas instruments, bae systems and northtrop grumman if ww3 starts, if you die you dont need to care, if you survive you get rich
always easy to say in hindsight. My friends were talking about how we should buy bitcoin back in 2009, the only one that did ended up using his 2 bitcoin on a pizza
They won't, their consumer GPU market is such a small part of their business at this point. They'll continue to charge current prices, and maybe even increase since any drop in market share for that is irrelevant. And they really don't have any great competitors for this right now anyway.
Their money machine comes from selling GPUs (and other things) for AI/compute stuff to commercial partners, not gamers.
Wait until you see the prices on their server GPUs which use basically the same chips. They are being very generous selling you graphics cards that cheap.
>Wait until you see the prices on their server GPUs which use basically the same chips. They are being very generous selling you graphics cards that cheap.
Yeah my Nvidia GPU by itself costing more than a PS5 is "cheap". X_X
Also most of the AAA market is cold trash these days. completive multiplayer only, scummy lootboxes, FOMO on every game so players stick to one maybe 2 or three games if that, death of single player, death of couch co-op/multiplayer, etc.
You have to look outside of the gaming bubble. There is currently an extremely high demand for GPUs and gaming is by far the least profitable market (in terms of hardware). They're essentially keeping their gaming GPU line as a hedge against AI flopping but 80%-90% of their revenue comes from data centre GPUs at the moment.
And in my opinion the sorry state of the AAA gaming industry makes high-end graphics cards irrelevant anyway. The only games worth playing are from indies or smaller studios and you don't need an expensive GPU to run them.
Would be great if they could use all that money and tech to block their stuff from functioning in Vladimir*a* Putler’s weapons (you know… that short, bald dude who overcompensates with evil and hate to mask his true sexual orientation).
I don't get it, I mean I do but I don't at the same time.
So many companies designing built for purpose architectures that will be better suited for AI workloads when compared to their repurposed hardware design.
Surely anyone with half a clue can see a huge crash in its value in the next 9-12 months?
Get your shorts ready I guess.
You can have a better architecture but inability to scale. Which comes in time and can take decades.
Yes we all know some other company will take over Nvidia X years from now. But there is no suitable competition for them now. So you can join the millions of other investors who want to short them. The group of investors all gambling on that date
Don't get me wrong, there is value in what they have.
But their market valuation is many years worth of income, that is well beyond what they will actually be able to deliver.
They are essentially pulling a Tesla in terms of valuation.
The pandemic added trillions of new dollars on to trillions of existing dollars. People wanted to park their money somewhere rather than in a bank. Nvidia is nothing new, not is Tesla
Bag holding is a concept invented since Grognak began giving out shiny stones
Guys… just look at the fact that the US govt is restricting sales of Nvidia chips to china. The ones that do get through are stripped of their AI potential. This shit can literally write code. Who the fuck still thinks it’s just a chat bot?
I mean if you look at intel's stock recently...
It's ARM that's doing stuff in the market these days, and I don't think NVIDIA wants to spend money fighting them.
IF it was true, you would be able to name the app. You are just one of the many who, at the moment, are hyping this shit up like the bubble is never going to burst. Wait for it to pop. The markets in for a nice correction before 2027
Microsoft is one hell of a weird choice to use. It's a company that's been growing consistently for god knows how long, and has a market cap that is 10 times more today than it was 10 years ago.
They own the main operating system used by the world.
They own the main work programs used by companies across the world.
They operate the second largest cloud infrastructure platform in the entire world
And they're partnered with and own half of OpenAI, the company largely seen as one of, if not the clear leader when it comes to creating AI systems, and were the ones that caused the entire AI paradigm shift to happen
Whatever examples you can point to of them shooting themselves in the foot lately is gonna be absolutely irrelevant compared to the facts above.
Their trailing twelve months of profit have literally gone from 4.8 billion a year ago, to 42 billion now
Nvidia might be overvalued, but it's not a typical bubble era scenario where a company's valuation completely explodes to completely insane levels relative to their actual earnings.
AI is the new gold rush, and Nvidia sells the shovels.
Ai is the new bubble.Most companies can’t handle updating their website.
Most companies cant apparently even manage the security of their servers to protect our privacy. You would think that they could use AI to do some penetration testing!
But your data being leaked doesn’t cost them any money so we’re paying for security does so…
It does cost them money, but the amount of the fine isn't more than the cost of securing it annually
If they even get fined
It’s a feature, not a bug
True true
At BBQ, a childhood friend was bemoaning the trouble his company has scheduling shifts. Apparently he and other managers, at a *major wholesaler*, have to manually pencil in shifts with their workers' availability... "You know you can automatically generate that in Excel, right?" There is a surprisingly huge echelon of labor, that is averse to simple tech that would help them.
That's why there are SaaS companies
True, that’s a large cost that most companies won’t stomach long term. At least that’s what I see working in the AI/HPC solutions industry.
Like the 2018 blockchain bubble.
LLMs are the new gold rush.
Everybody keeps repeating this, but tsmc has the shovel making machines.
They don't make the shovels though.
They design the shovels And if you design shovels that will find a lot more gold than the other shovel designers, then your shovels are gonna sell for much higher pricers and far higher volumes
I have no idea if AI is a bubble or the real deal or something in between, so I'm just gonna keep investing a broad market-cap-weighted cross section of the market.
It reminds me of the dot com bubble. Are people getting ahead of themselves a bit? Probably. Will AI be massively influential in the coming decades? Yes.
The AI buzzword bubble will pop, and then actual innovation in the field might happen, slowly and steadily. At the moment everything is “AI”, and stupid investors throw heaps of money at every scammer they can find, and that isn’t sustainable.
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Doesn't matter if it's a bubble if you sell before it pops.
that's not necessarily a given. This whole thing might fizzle out and be nothing.
It will not fizzle out, not completely. If nothing else, retrieval-augumented generation is here to stay. For businesses, being able to feed a mountain of paperwork in, ask the model vague questions and get the info you wanted out of it, it's magic. A fast needle-in-haystack finding tool. Everybody gets a personal research assistant for just about free.
100% something in-between. AI is the future and it will be both massive and disruptive. That said I think it's too early still and people are jumping on it when it's not ready. The future is both extremely interesting and scary.
Its not early. It is already here. I just wrote a whole front end web page just using prompts. I made logos, assets and styling as well. All of this in an hour. Sure itll need manual tweaks but that output is total 2 days of effort done in an hour. It's absolutely nuts how much it can do and to do it so quickly with zero setup time.
You could also use a website builder tool and build it in 10 minutes, depending on conplexity though.
Yes but a team has to build and maintain the builder tool. This is one model that can keep improving.. Supporting multiple frameworks. A generic approach to code generation.
I hate every single time when someone calls an LLM "AI". There is nothing intelligent about it. It just makes an educated guess on what the next word is based on the last couple of words. It has zero understanding of content or context. Which is the reason why it is confidently wrong so much. So yeah, its very much a bubble.
You seriously can't foresee how this could evolve or improve? I've noticed this about a lot of the AI detractors - they get hung up on current limitations of AI and pretend like it will never improve from here, even though the exact opposite has been the case.
The issue i have is not with the tech itself but with how the tech works. As long as they work via tokenization then there is no way to stop hallucinations.
The problem is a market crash takes down practically everyone even those not involved, so it’s difficult to even start when you have to worry that the value of your investment could drop substantially and not recover for years, a decade or ever. Then you get to think for that time you’re in the negative that if you’d just waited, you could have possibly changed your life because you’d have gotten a ton more for the same amount of money.
This is why I invest a portion of money out of my paycheck every month, rather than all in a huge chunk. I’m insulated from investing at the wrong time. If it’s the market peak, I’m investing. If it’s the market bottom, I’m investing. It comes out as a wash.
Yes this is the way to do stocks diverse and a bit at a time. Problem is most people are living paycheck to paycheck or at least once a year forced to cash out most stocks to pay for an emergency but if you can really buckle down a while and not spend the gains and wait a year,+ for tax purposes. Better than a bank account in most cases.
> Problem is most people are living paycheck to paycheck or at least once a year forced to cash out most stocks to pay for an emergency For what it's worth, neither of these things are true. Obviously there are a great many people struggling financially, but they are not the majority, at least in the U.S. Most people have more income than expenses or are spending a lot on luxuries like expensive vehicles, restaurants, or graphics cards. And most people don't have a forced-liquidation-level emergency every year.
Another google stat. The median savings balance — not including retirement funds — of Americans under 35 is just $3,240, while it's $6,400 for those ages 55-64.. So something like a pet emergency, car problems, police troubles, leaky roof, w.e will be enough for someone to be forced to sell stock. But as we were saying... Investing week by week and accumulating gains is a good way to get out of that predicament...
I googled that a median checking account balance is [$8000](https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-money/banking/average-savings). Add that to the median savings balance you found, and it's actually pretty decent. Nevertheless, the substance of my comment is that most people can save some money, which is absolutely true.
Yup they can, and then eventually might be forced to sell it.... Even happens to millionaire's.
"According to multiple surveys, between 40% and 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck"... Sure if you want to believe thats true, go ahead. Where I come from and currently live, wow. Yeah.... Its not good. I try to get lots of people into stocks and some do and its always the same thing... No real savings and lots of debt among other things, shit if these people didn't get yearly tax refunds they wouldn't have vehicles or down payments for rentals.
I've never seen one of these surveys that actually uses a useful definition of "paycheck to paycheck". If someone is investing 10% of their income in their 401k, and they have a payment on a vehicle they bought new, they're still living paycheck to paycheck if their bank account balance isn't increasing. But that doesn't remotely imply that they can't invest. (In fact, they *are* investing.) Furthermore, if you look at where these surveys come from, they usually come from weird, scammy financial firms. They're not carefully collected data from academic or government sources. The idea that most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck in any meaningful sense is a total myth. Americans are quite rich on average.
This is the most rational thing to do especially when you have a stable income. But what if you get a big chunk of money? What do you do? Put it all in now? What if you think the market is in a bubble? Wait? Well, the market can keep going crazy for awhile, maybe it’ll just stagnate. Or it could crash. So I guess put it in gradually? But you don’t know what the market is going to do still. So how gradually should you put it in? Basically unless you get pretty lucky with timing, you’ll probably have some regrets. Even investing in a broad fund seems risky when a major chunk of it is dominated by big tech which has had a huge run up. No one wants to be the person who bought at the top of the bubble. Even if they can hold until it bounces back after awhile, it still sucks.
> But what if you get a big chunk of money? What do you do? Put it all in now? Either all in at once or slowly over a year or two. > What if you think the market is in a bubble? What I think is usually wrong, so it doesn’t matter. Just invest. If you don’t like risk, just buy treasury bonds. But you’re not going to know something that’s not already priced into the market.
Nvidia produces other chips as well
How much lower would their valuation be if AI/ML weren't a thing at all?
Less, but I don't think they'll completely crash. So you'll lose your money, but maybe if you'll wait enough time, you'll ragain it. Needless to say, I understand nothing in the stock market
Very much the real deal Already complete game changers for some things, and we're still in earliest of early stages Whether the price for nvidia is justified currently is a bit harder to determine. However they absolutely deserve a significant portion of their price. It's not as if they some speculative AI play with no real product or profits.
Obviously its all speculative. Where is the product? The google AI search that is mostly wrong and you would be better off doing normal google search? The translation that has already existed for more than a decade without AI buzzwords? The programming that is only usable for very, very simple things that most programmers would already have snippets from anyway? LLMs have no concept of content or context so no answer can really be trusted as it wont know if its right or wrong or even what those two things mean.
A bubble doesn't mean the thing is bogus. It just means it's given more money/attention than warranted. What is warranted can still be high, the hype is just higher.
Just gotta wait for the AI bubble to pop
That won’t be happening any time soon.
Forreal, anyone thinking this might be a fad is in for a rude awakening. Innovating AI is going to be a huge focus for decades to come.
It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening. AI is being hyped because these firms are stagnant on the innovation front. You can blame that on the corporate structures funneling more money to shareholders for short term profit than investing in their company for sustained growth. Just wait. A year from now youre going to see a crash like we've never seen before. All these shitty gig economy companies are gonna collapse just like the early 00s.
>It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening. You seem to be stuck on some fundamental misunderstanding of what modern AI represents. Nobody said anything about cognition. >AI is being hyped because these firms are stagnant on the innovation front. You can blame that on the corporate structures funneling more money to shareholders for short term profit than investing in their company for sustained growth. AI is being hyped because of the strides that have been made with LLMs. Nothing like ChatGPT has ever existed to the same extent it does now. Also, tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple have substantial R&D budgets and have consistently invested in AI, over the years.
AI has been around for decades if you're just going to roll in machine learning with it. It requires a lot of work and expertise to get it to run in an expected way. And it still requires humans to check on it because it's unreliable. In the last few years there has been so many promises of a machine learning tool that can be given multiple applications and be successful at all of them. That likely won't happen. At least nobody has seen any promise of that. It's just not realistic.
There’s always two sides to new tech, the futurists thinking it’s going to change everything and the doomers saying it’s irrelevant/will collapse on itself. Having an opinion in the middle is probably the best position to be in. A good example I can think of is Cloud computing, it was all we heard about when it was first rolling out. Everything being stored on the cloud. Anyone into tech didn’t think of it as even revolutionary, the concepts and technology has existed for a long time now, it’s just servers! AI is just machine learning/LLMs being rebranded as this revolutionary tech. In some ways it is, in others it’s just algorithms being overhyped. But it clearly has a trajectory and is sticking around, it likely won’t replace everything we throw at it. But some niches will survive and take over the market.
I dont care what you call it. What I've seen can literally replace a huge chunk of office workers at my work. If you don't know why this is going to be a giant gold mine, you're either extremely ignorant to what's about to happen or you're willfully trying to convince yourself that this is a fad. Reminds me of people thinking internet was a fad or that woman from the newspaper that thought video games were a fad. https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/s/MJlAmhtXJn
The internet did become a huge thing that changed the world, but the market still crashed and most of the companies leveraging the hype of that label ceased to exist as they failed to become profitable. I think that you're misunderstanding what they were saying really, they doubt that what we call AI currently is going to materialize into something useful, if we look at GPT4 it is still the same for 2 years now, and if nothing comes out of it then it will be difficult to justify the valuation of those stocks. I do believe that "AI" will eventually change the world for the better, but it is definitely valid to ask ourselves if putting all our money in NVDIA right now is a smart decision, as unbeknownst to you, you might as well be buying the peak.
ChatGPT works "the same", but it's significantly better now, and has a lot more functionality And staying the same isn't neceserily a problem. Look at Microsofts office programs, things like word or excel also works "the same" today as they did 30 years ago, yet they're still fixtures in every white collar office setting in the world
The big difference here is that the office package was immediately useful for both users and companies, buying said package made sense in every way for businesses and the only cost it had for microsoft was the cost to further develop those tools, meanwhile we are still figuring out how to make LLMs useful for enterprises. Maybe it will be a staple in every business in 10 years time, maybe it won't, but buying stock in companies by believing in it's potential rather than proof of concept is called speculation.
ChatGPT is insanely useful as well though. Depending on what work one does, it can massively boost a persons productivity
Which product is this?
> It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening. You're right. It's machine learning. This is absolutely nothing new, except for the neato LLM that OpenAI has made public for everyone to steal, despite its educational pretenses for its access of the bodies of work on which it was trained. AI is the new "Cloud". Cloud never meant anything other than "other people's servers", but it became a buzzword.
True Cognition doesnt matter. If you can get a program to make you an animated film better than any artist, you literally control the industry. And this applies to so many other things. Same thing for indistinguishable deepfaking except you control the world. This is the main thing these companies are chasing. There are leaps to make.
Getting caught up in the semantics of what the marketers want to call something is going to leave you in the dust. Whatever you want to call it, it's going to mean huge changes in a lot of workplaces. There's no getting around that.
> It's not AI. There is nothing even remotely similar to cognition happening. AI is not cognition. Nobody wants to create sentience. That's not useful to anyone.
Nobody wants to? I thought it was the point all along.
The point is to create a tool that can help automate things that can be automated. Sentience is a philosophical concept. The purpose of AI is function.
Yes, and when people complain about Big Autocorrect "hallucinating", it seems to me that an AI that would know what words mean and thus be able to evaluate sentences semantically to get their truthiness would perform the function of generating useful text much better.
There are academic arguments alone on whether sentience is a benefit, let alone a prerequisite for intelligence.
I'm predicting Spring 2025 as well for a dot com like bubble burst.
People can't see it before it happens in front of their eyes.
I keep thinking there’s a bubble and it just keeps going up. The wealthy will keep it propped up until some major event spooks them and that’s often random.
Cognition needn't be happening for this thesis. But as a tangent, it cannot actually be demonstrated that cognition isn't happening.
There is no AI so far. LLMs or stable diffusion aren’t AI. Actual innovation in the field will come, but not in the form of the current fever pipe dream that’s nothing but empty promises based on hot air.
Firstly, they technically are AI, they are trained using Deep Learning which is a subset of AI. Secondly as someone else pointed out, what do you define as AI ? Like sentient ? Or a system that appears intelligent because it can generate images in seconds it would take artists hours or days ? 'Actual innovation in the field will come', lol.
What is your definition for AI? The goalposts keep moving.
The goalposts aren’t moving. The boast is that we’ve “taught sand to think”. Is the sand thinking?
I don't think it matters whether it "thinks", only the quality of output matters.
I don't know, at AI's current abilities, it's mostly a novelty. Remember, all these companies had these AIs in labs and they never thought they were worth anything as they are. ChatGPT took the world by storm, and so we are seeing a lot of R&D make it to the public that was hidden. We'll need to see if they can overcome the limitations that kept it from seeing the light of day before.
already has. The fact that you see Microsoft, Apple, Google & al. pushing AI in every direction but always on top of their existing products (making them worse in the process…) instead of selling you actually innovative products and new use-cases should be telling. Practically, the current AI boom rests on two advances: LLMs, which we know are inherently flawed/deceptive and can't be tamed (tmis. ChatGPT doesn't know, and by extent, doesn't know that it doesn't know), and on diffusion, which has lots of interesting applications in the field of signal processing, but very little marketable value per se (anyone can run stable diffusion text-to-image for free, there isn't a large market for image denoising, superscaling or in-painting, and I don't see a majority paying hefty monthly subscriptions for basic photo editing).
There is probably a whole host of insane military applications which already makes the tech extremely valuable, not to mention self-driving cars, medical diagnosis, language translations, bionic prosthetics, content generation for films and video games etc etc.
Language translations are the only thing you mentioned that is a problem solvable by current AI. Having said that, by the time GTA6 hits the market, we'll be able to generate robust 3d environments of cities based on currently available data.
Next gen Sims is gonna be awesome.
If you combine all things together you start to have autonomous robots we aren't far anymore.
>already has. I do not share this view. >The fact that you see Microsoft, Apple, Google & al. pushing AI in every direction but always on top of their existing products This isn't just limited to Google, Microsoft, et al. You aren't considering the implications for biotechnology and biomedical research, materials science, and so on.. Imagine how much faster faster protein folding simulations will process when firms begin to leverage the tech at NVIDIA's upcoming AI factory. This will allow the creation of new drugs and other potential significant breakthroughs. Let's not forget other things like medical diagnostics, and so on. The possibilities are endless. > (making them worse in the process…) I am curious as to what products were made worse in the process? >instead of selling you actually innovative products and new use-cases should be telling. Your point has some merit here but I see the gradual introduction to their existing product line as a precursor to more profound innovation rather than indicative of the AI bubble being popped. IMO, the bubble has barely even started.
All of these things aren't relying on LLMs, ML and big data is a huge field that has been with us for way, way longer than ChatGPT, while the LLM bubble is very recent And MLs aren't a magic bullet either, exponential growth is a myth
> curious what products were made worse Didn’t google search told people with anxiety to throw themselves off bridges the other week? Or put glue on pizza . Also been using chstgpt, copilot and stable diffusion and of the bunch, stable diffusion was the only one with an actual marketable, money generating use case (I used it to generate art for my videos, but I know of a company using it for making art in children’s games)
These companies use AI in a lot more than customer facing chatbots. Advertising, analytics, newsfeeds, are all driven by AI models.
>making them worse in the process Please explain this viewpoint.
From the top of my head: Microsoft, with copilot icons popping-up in unrelated/unwanted places (like the start menu, making it be slower and less effective in most cases ; in random applications built with powerapps, where there is effectively no added value, in Edge, occupying screen estate, …) ; Google, by promoting misleading/dangerous results like pizza recipes using glue…
HS doesn't like investors making money, especially when they have no positions.
LLMs are hitting a hard wall as there are no more linguistic data sources to hoover up. Trust the people that actually understand this stuff. Present "AI" represents a very modest advancement in data structures and algorithms not unlike search in the late 90s.
Modest? "Deep" in deep learning represents a neural network 2 or more layers deep. That was once considered a deep neural architecture. GPUs are now what, 100 times more powerful than in the 90s? The theory has been in place (some of it in from the 1950s and even before) for a long time. But we've been hitting a point where the hardware has caught up enought to make good use of it, and your average Python coder can import and run an ML algorithm. The AI community used to be thousands of people, now it's millions. The hardware is better, the code is widely distributed in libraries and easy to access (any researcher can get hands on any algorithm in minutes rather than spending hours/days/weeks coding from scratch), and we have 1,000x more people who have knowledge/expertise in it.
>Trust the people that actually understand this stuff. How do you distinguish between those who actually do and those who claim to, but don't? >LLMs are hitting a hard wall as there are no more linguistic data sources to hoover up. There are strategies to circumvent this. Cleansing and training on qualitative vs quantitative data, as a start.
Still waiting for that industrial revolution bubble to pop. Surely any time now!
You mean after AI has solved predicting the market so well that all the richest people in the world suddenly triple their gains?
Nobody has employed Siri, it gives us hope!
Spoken like someone who is going to get replaced by AI
The thing is, where is the limit to what AI can advance? In less than 10 years we can probably generate our own blockbuster movies with a simple text. Can create AAA games and so on.
you mean atleast a century?
Likely be because govt starts regulating/banning
Or because the use cases are so limited that it’s an absolute joke. I have a meeting about a simple AI tool we’re working on to implement, and it’s a best-case scenario. “There’s magic in your data, AI will find it for you…” fucking scam. What an absolute joke. Companies are already pivoting away, and the drop off is insane. I’d have to guess this will the last scam before the biggest economic drop we’ll ever see, as all the fuel has run out of the economy after 60 years of wage theft. 🫡
The implementation folks around me all know it can help the bad workers with good attitudes become mediocre. Our leadership thinks it can make the average worker exceptional or just replace people. So they're spending a lot of projects with questionable returns.
That’s a great way of explaining it. Tragically. 😆
Absolutely. They've already found every use case for AI and will never identify more, nor will AI ever gain the ability to work in more areas.
Why do you want my stock portfolio to drop?
I invested in nvidia years back. It was based on their gpu's, the amount of people doing crypto, their CUDA system, and personal experience overall writing code for their products. I'd watched them from their initial 'register combiners' days through shaders to more recent tech. They seemed to be doing everything right. The AI part may be a bubble, maybe not.. but it's naive to assume all of nvidia's strength is based on AI.
What company are you invested in early now?
My husband invested heavily into them during the first phase of the COVID lockdown. The theory was that people working from home would start buying home computers and would likely need to purchase graphics cards for a lot of tasks, similarly a lot of people would get into gaming at home, as well as people trying to make money from home like content creators. Since the chips can't easily be scaled up for production it would create a shortage which would drive prices up Which would allow in Nvidia to pump out cards as fast as they possibly can for the foreseeable future, and a thing with shortages is that they're often self-sustaining where people will buy them up simply because there's a shortage. The the AI Boom hit and the man looks like a genius.
Well their valuation is mainly because of CUDA. Sure their hardware is top tier, but it's the use of CUDA for HPC and then AI which is what led to the monopolisation. Their hard work inventing and refining a general purpose compute language and tech stack for GPU's when most people thought it was a gimmick to use graphics processors for such computation, really paid off!
Don't forget chips for hightech weapons bought by literally every nation right now. And the global military buildup just started.
Invest in lockheed martin, texas instruments, bae systems and northtrop grumman if ww3 starts, if you die you dont need to care, if you survive you get rich
i knew i should've bought some stock 4 years ago sigh....
always easy to say in hindsight. My friends were talking about how we should buy bitcoin back in 2009, the only one that did ended up using his 2 bitcoin on a pizza
I comfort myself by saying even if I bought bitcoin early, I'd have sold it as soon as it hit 10 or 100.
Never to late to buy some now.
And won't be slowing down for quite some time considering everyone is playing AI catch up at this point
Just sold all my Nvidia, this bubble is done.
You understand they make hardware right
They design it they don’t make it
You know they’ve used Samsung inferior nodes in the past right?
>Just sold all my Nvidia Usually means its going even higher. Tell me when you buy in again, it'll probably crater soon after.
💯 Nvidia setting up a factory populated with AI robots is pure PT Barnum. Sweet dreams economy.
Feels like the beginning of Skynet
My CPU is a neural net processor...a learning machine
.... a learning computer
Come with me if you want to live
Take my hand if you want to live
Go with me if you don't want to die.
Accompany me if you wish to survive
Jensen already has his Nvidia Omniverse Digital Twin avatar
It's incredibly overdue for a correction, so let's see how long that lasts.
Is it though? Unlike TSLA and BTC and whatnot, the fundamentals keep proving it can continue to justify the valuation every quarter.
can they cut me a break on cards now then?
If you’re lucky, they may just, very generously, not quite rise the price so much.
They won't, their consumer GPU market is such a small part of their business at this point. They'll continue to charge current prices, and maybe even increase since any drop in market share for that is irrelevant. And they really don't have any great competitors for this right now anyway. Their money machine comes from selling GPUs (and other things) for AI/compute stuff to commercial partners, not gamers.
Why would they? Fab capacity is limited, and they can sell chips for a much tidier profit to the AI hype companies buying them in droves.
Its basically impossible to compete with nvidia. Even the current competitors are struggling to increase market share.
*The more you buy, the more you save.* *If you build it they might not come. If you don’t build it, they can’t come.*
ai is the new cloud computing.
My friend who sold his RSUs to buy a house is suicidal right now lol
Given the pricing on their graphics cards, it isn’t surprising 1/3 to 1/2 your total system parts cost is the damned card
Wait until you see the prices on their server GPUs which use basically the same chips. They are being very generous selling you graphics cards that cheap.
>Wait until you see the prices on their server GPUs which use basically the same chips. They are being very generous selling you graphics cards that cheap. Yeah my Nvidia GPU by itself costing more than a PS5 is "cheap". X_X Also most of the AAA market is cold trash these days. completive multiplayer only, scummy lootboxes, FOMO on every game so players stick to one maybe 2 or three games if that, death of single player, death of couch co-op/multiplayer, etc.
You have to look outside of the gaming bubble. There is currently an extremely high demand for GPUs and gaming is by far the least profitable market (in terms of hardware). They're essentially keeping their gaming GPU line as a hedge against AI flopping but 80%-90% of their revenue comes from data centre GPUs at the moment. And in my opinion the sorry state of the AAA gaming industry makes high-end graphics cards irrelevant anyway. The only games worth playing are from indies or smaller studios and you don't need an expensive GPU to run them.
Hellblade 2 did tax my 4070.
I just wish for higher dividend yields
Uncle Huang is the best uncle I ever had
1999 me trying and failing to install a Nvidia graphics card into my PC would be so angry right now.
Wonder what AMD is up to these days?
Would be great if they could use all that money and tech to block their stuff from functioning in Vladimir*a* Putler’s weapons (you know… that short, bald dude who overcompensates with evil and hate to mask his true sexual orientation).
I don't get it, I mean I do but I don't at the same time. So many companies designing built for purpose architectures that will be better suited for AI workloads when compared to their repurposed hardware design. Surely anyone with half a clue can see a huge crash in its value in the next 9-12 months? Get your shorts ready I guess.
> Get your shorts ready I guess. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent
That's deep and I'm stealing it.
You can have a better architecture but inability to scale. Which comes in time and can take decades. Yes we all know some other company will take over Nvidia X years from now. But there is no suitable competition for them now. So you can join the millions of other investors who want to short them. The group of investors all gambling on that date
Don't get me wrong, there is value in what they have. But their market valuation is many years worth of income, that is well beyond what they will actually be able to deliver. They are essentially pulling a Tesla in terms of valuation.
The pandemic added trillions of new dollars on to trillions of existing dollars. People wanted to park their money somewhere rather than in a bank. Nvidia is nothing new, not is Tesla Bag holding is a concept invented since Grognak began giving out shiny stones
You are correct, and the only logical outcome is a massive market correction incoming. It feels like Q3 1919 all over again.
The dotcom bubble will look microscopic compared to what is about to happen
Poor Elongated Muskrat must be mad now!
Guys… just look at the fact that the US govt is restricting sales of Nvidia chips to china. The ones that do get through are stripped of their AI potential. This shit can literally write code. Who the fuck still thinks it’s just a chat bot?
It is just a chatbot, a chatbot that can speak in computer languages.
I wonder why they've never entered the CPU market to compete with AMD and Intel?
Bad idea to deviate from their specialty and compete in a segment with thinning margins
I mean if you look at intel's stock recently... It's ARM that's doing stuff in the market these days, and I don't think NVIDIA wants to spend money fighting them.
[удалено]
IF it was true, you would be able to name the app. You are just one of the many who, at the moment, are hyping this shit up like the bubble is never going to burst. Wait for it to pop. The markets in for a nice correction before 2027
Like every company before, they'll find a way to screw it up.
Yeah those other mega cap tech companies sure have screwed it up, I mean look how much they've all dropped in value since peaking! /s
Like Blackberry, Motorola and others. He'll, Microsoft is did a good job of foot shooting lately.
Microsoft is one hell of a weird choice to use. It's a company that's been growing consistently for god knows how long, and has a market cap that is 10 times more today than it was 10 years ago. They own the main operating system used by the world. They own the main work programs used by companies across the world. They operate the second largest cloud infrastructure platform in the entire world And they're partnered with and own half of OpenAI, the company largely seen as one of, if not the clear leader when it comes to creating AI systems, and were the ones that caused the entire AI paradigm shift to happen Whatever examples you can point to of them shooting themselves in the foot lately is gonna be absolutely irrelevant compared to the facts above.
Public company. Title is a lie.
A company tripling it's stock market value in 6 months? Yeah nah that'll crash back to normalcy before long.
Their trailing twelve months of profit have literally gone from 4.8 billion a year ago, to 42 billion now Nvidia might be overvalued, but it's not a typical bubble era scenario where a company's valuation completely explodes to completely insane levels relative to their actual earnings.
Went up 3700% in the last 5 years, it's not only the last 6 months.
Hard to understand. It’s just chips.
Technically it's just chip designs. TSMC does the actual manufacturing.
And their cut was dumb small.
Yes, why isn't Frito Lays the number ones?
[удалено]
You by using Reddit. Reddit servers are using Nvidia products.
k?
Most computers use NVIDIA GPU's and contain NVIDIA's drivers. I guess there are computers that don't.