Unfortunately, "it would end life on Earth as we know it" is not, on its own terms, a thing that will stop it from happening. All it takes is the people who can make the decision deciding to do it because they think they will come out ahead, and not caring about what it may do to anyone else. And they don't even have to be right. They just have to think they will come out ahead.

Don't mistake talking about a thing as advocating for that thing. It leaves you completely unable to process international politics, and frankly, a lot of other news and discussion as well. If you can only think about things you approve of, your model of the world is worse than useless.

Pretty likely, I think, it'd be a geographically restricted war.

The countries wouldn't fire nukes against each other's mainlands but maybe against each other's fleets. Pretty likely

What even would be the goals of such wars?

Destroy the other country?

Take it over?

Be in a 1984 style „fake“ war forever?

You think they haven't done that sort of things yet?

If anything that would be a boost to Intel. One of their problems is GPU capex sucking the air out of the room.

There will be a dramatic reduction in “demand” and Nvidia will be stuck with a massive “surplus”

There will undoubtedly still be a market for Nvidia chips but it won’t be enough to keep things going as they are.

A new market opening up with the same demand as AI just at the point that AI pops would be a miracle. Something like being an unsecured bond holder in 2010.

>When the AI bubble pops, there’ll be a next thing

And what is that post-AI bubble "next big thing" exactly?

If there were, you'd already see people putting their money towards it.

>This is comically premature.

When you follow the progress in the last 12 months, it really isn't. Big AI companies spent "hella' stacks" of cash, but delivered next to no progress.

Progress has flatlined. The "rocket to the moon" phase has already passed us by now.

>We may already be there.

Numbers prove we aren't. Sales figures show very few customers are willing to pay $200 per month for the top AI chatbots, and even at $200/month, OpenAI is still taking a loss on that plan so they're still loosing money even with top dollar customers.

I think you're unaware just how unprofitable the big AI products are. This can only go on for so long. We're not in the ZIRP era anymore where SV VC funded unicorns can be unprofitable indefinitely and endlessly burn cash on the idea that when they'll eventually beat all competitors in the race to the bottom and become monopolies they can finally turn a profit by squeezing users with higher real-world price. That ship has sailed.

> They just need to become dependent on the bots to increase their productivity to the point where they feel they cannot do their job without the chatbot's help

Correct, but said technology needs to be self sustaining commercially. The cost the white collar worker pays needs to be enough to cover the cost of running the AI + profit

It seems like we are a long way off that yet but maybe we expect an AI to solve that problem ala Kurzweil

Why are this and the first reply being downvoted? Perfectly legitimate thoughts.

Anyway, I'd just point out that users don't even need to depend on the bots for increase productivity, they just need to BELIEVE it increases their productivity. Exhibit A being the recent study which found that experienced programmers were actually less productive when they used an LLM, even though they self-reported productivity gains.

This may not be the first time the tech industry has tricked us into thinking it makes us more productive, when in reality it's just figuring out ways to consume more of our attention. In Deep Work, Cal Newport made the argument that interruptive "network tools" in general decrease focus and therefore productivity, while making you think that you're doing something valuable by staying constantly connected. There was a study on this one too. They looked at consultants who felt that replying as quickly as possible to their clients, even outside of work hours, was important to their job performance. But then when they took the interruptive technologies away, spent more time focusing on their real jobs, and replied to the clients less often, they started producing better work and client feedback scores actually went up.

Now personally I haven't stopped using an LLM when I code but I'm certainly thinking twice about how I use it these days. I actually have cut out most interruptive technology when I work, i.e. email notifications disabled, not keeping Slack open, phone on silent in a drawer, etc. and it has improved my focus and probably my work quality.

It does have the power to intimidate broadcasters and pressure them in a variety of ways.

ostensibly it does.

Sure seems like they're trying to invent one

To be clear (not that I agree with this situation): Fox News (where that presenter works) is a cable network, beholden to the cable providers but not a broadcaster. The FCC has relatively little leverage to regulate it, because it does not rely on broadcast licenses.

ABC is a broadcast network. It relies on a network of affiliates (largely owned by a few big companies) who selectively broadcast its programming both over the airwaves and to cable providers. Those affiliates have individual licenses for their radio broadcasting bandwidth which the FCC does have leverage over (and whose content the FCC has a long history of regulating, but not usually directly over politics, e.g. public interest requirements, profanity, and obscenity laws).

To be fair I don't see what the FCC has to do with it. This is classic Manufacturing Consent behavior.

Of course I watched it, many times. I didn't say he said anything directly violent, but he spread hateful disinformation about someone's death, entirely against FBI's findings and common sense, during a time of the highest temperatures in a while. Just to try to win the attention of people that'd rather not look in the mirror.

This is exactly the kind of disingenuous, dehumanizing behavior that radicalizes people like Tyler. And saying that right now would be like if Reagan got in to a spat about something personal during the cold war.

Yes I did. The whole clip. A few times. Not easy to watch.

If you watch the clip and know what's going on in the US right now, saying such vile disinformation now nothing but aims to up the temperature.

That's the deciding reason he got shut down too. Absolute inability to read the "room", even though what he said would be ugly at any point.

You clearly didn't see the clip; what you describe was just a part of it, and there Trump appears to just have not heard the question.

I don't think Nvidia cares about the CPU ISA.

Sure, but claiming they have literally just started is completely inaccurate.

They've been making discrete GPUs on and off since the 80s, and this is at least their 3rd major attempt at it as a company, depending on how you define "major".

They haven't even just started on this iteration, as the Arc line has been out since 2022.

The main thing I learned from this submission is how much people hate Nvidia.

Over a PCIe5 x8, ~31.5gb/s.

Yeah, I must be doing something wrong. Someone else pointed out that I should be getting much better performance. I'll be looking into it.

You can get them for $2,000 now. One from Asus has been that price several times over the last few months. I got my PNY for 2200 or so.

FWIW, my slowness is because of quantizing.

I've been using Mistral 7B, and I can get 45 tokens/sec, which is PLENTY fast, but to save VRAM so I can game while doing inference (I run an IRC bot that allows people to talk to Mistral), I quantize to 8 bits, which then brings my inference speed down to ~8 tokens/sec.

For gaming, I absolutely love this card. I can play Cyberpunk 2077 with all the graphics settings set to the maximum and get 120+ fps. Though when playing a much more graphically intense game like that, I certainly need to kill the bot to free up the VRAM. But I can play something simpler like League of Legends and have inference happening while I play with zero impact on game performance.

I also have 128 GB of system RAM. I've thought about loading the model in both 8-bit and 16-bit into system RAM and just swap which one is in VRAM based on if I'm playing a game so that if I'm not playing something, the bot runs significantly faster.

Intel isn’t that far behind. But it is dumb to depend on fabs in a country that is just one Chinese missile away from getting destroyed.