I really dislike the term hyperscaler. Comes off very insincere. They came up with it themselves, didn't they? What's the official definition supposed to be now? Companies that are setting up as many GPU/TPU server clusters as possible for a demand that's yet to exist?

I have concluded the entire public discourse surrounding AI has no relationship to real stuff that you can go, test, and point at.

There’s a loop of everyone is saying stuff because everyone else is saying stuff that turns into a sort of reality inspired fan fiction.

It’s not just that it’s wrong or imprecise, that I expect, it’s that the folklore takes on a life of its own.

Hyperscale exists as a term pre-LLM-hype. It mainly exists to describe the kind of datacenteres that companies like google and amazon have been building for at least a decade now: very large, very highly integrated and customised hardware, with a focus on cloud deployment and management strategies. This is to distinguish from just a large datacenter built with commodity server parts from a set of vendors (i.e. the kinds of servers 99% of people will be able to lay their hands on. Another way to put it is that if you're not writing your own BIOS/BMC/etc, you're probably not hyperscaling).

It always makes me think of a hyperactive toddler running around in circles, which oddly fits most thought leaders who use the term.

Nobody really uses the term in the Valley except probably C-level people talking to Wall street investors.

Superscaler sounds too much like superscalar…