to their credit, there was a lot of work behind "luck". Jensen showed up in person in 2017 in NEURIPS and he and likely a lot of his top brass basically sat down and read the entire conference proceedings/abstracts; there was likely a lot of work behind the scenes to behind the ML research pivot.

▲ jldugger a day ago | parent | next [-]

And 2017 was _late_ in their pivot. They'd been active for much, much longer. Last winter break I sat down to watch every GTC keynote, going back to 2009[1]. Even then, he's talking about expanding to non-graphics workloads. Google's GPU paper[2] just slotted naturally into their existing narrative and were happy to support it. "fortune favors the prepared" as they say.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYuH2Kl_b98 [2]: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...

	▲	caycep 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They definitely were sponsoring ML conferences before 2017, but symbolically, having Jensen/the CEO actually show up at a dedicated session and demonstrate detailed technical knowledge of the conference proceedings in my mind was a turning point. Albeit I remember his words to the crowd of grad students and post docs at the time: "Only Nvidia would announce their flagship card...to an audience who is completely broke!!"

▲ adastra22 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, The NVIDIA Way goes into a lot of detail on how and why the pivot from graphics to AI happened. This is a prime example of “you make your own luck.” Jensen engineered an organization that was primed to recognize and pounce on the next big thing, and it ended up being AI. But they saw it coming WAY in advance (like 2011/2012, not 2017) because they were explicitly on the lookout.

▲ adolph a day ago | parent [-]

> an organization that was primed to recognize and pounce on the next big thing

e.g.: previous crypto hype-cycle

https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-cmp-graphics-card-availabilit...

▲ aurareturn 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They didn't make their GPUs for crypto. Crypto companies just bought a lot of their GPUs.

If they had a choice, they would have sold every GPU to gamers instead because a crypto boom was always followed by a crash which flooded the market with used GPUs and crashed Nvidia's stock price.

▲ adolph 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> They didn't make their GPUs for crypto.

Sure they did and still do. They did a good job of managing the bubble but participate in the market nontheless. Read the above article: Nvidia has promised that its new lineup of cryptocurrency mining GPUs, called CMP for short, won't impact the supply of GeForce graphics cards for PC gamers. . . Since these cards are destined for mining rigs they will also lack video outputs. That may mean the resale value is diminished, which has been one reason why miners prefer gaming graphics cards.

Or take it from the horse's mouth [0]:

  NVIDIA Cmp Hx
  Dedicated GPU for Professional Mining

0. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/cmp/

	▲	aurareturn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They made a dedicated chip because miners were buying up all the GPUs from gamers. They also nerfed GPU hash rates through software to prevent miners from buying them.

▲ kridsdale1 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Crypto was a stupid fad, but Nvidia certainly made a lot of money, so being a vendor to a fad is not stupid.

	▲	adolph a day ago \| parent [-]
		Which makes it a Exempli gratia of "an organization that was primed to recognize and pounce on the next big thing." In addition, they also recognized early on some of the weaknesses of crypto-mining as an industry and limited their exposure while making a pivot to the next thing.

▲ georgeburdell a day ago | parent | prev [-]

AlexNet was 2012 and they explicitly called out the use of NVidia GPUs