| ▲ | rurp 2 days ago |
| Giving Jensen credit for creating literally all of the value from Nvidia seems really over the top. He happened to be running the biggest GPU company during the biggest GPU boom ever. Sure he had an impact on the numbers and the timing, but if Jensen had never been born someone else would be heading a giant chip company around this period of time that saw it's stock take off like a rocket ship. This would happen even if the counterfactual CEO was incompetent. |
|
| ▲ | dmonitor 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Isn't he the entire reason Nvidia invested so heavily in tensor cores before AI even became a massive market mover? He definitely deserves credit for setting Nvidia up with a massive lead in this emergent industry. |
| |
| ▲ | asdff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It isn't like he is the one who did the research to lead to that decision though. That just isn't his job. He isn't an analyst. He is CEO, who reads reports or sat in presentations made by his analysts, whatever their specific position titles, who are really the ones who did the work weighing and making this decision. His role was to say yes to these people whose job it is to actually figure this out. So indeed, if he was not CEO, likely whoever would have been would be given the same information as Jensen that lead to him saying yes on tensor cores. And in all likelihood, the same exact decision would have been made, or at least a coinflips odds chance if it really were a matter of "yes" or "no" with no clear winner. | | |
| ▲ | keybrd-intrrpt a day ago | parent [-] | | My experience in corporate America is that, no - it would NOT be likely that a different CEO makes the same call. Many, especially the "non-founder" CEOs, are risk-averse. There's likely many CUDA-like ideas from internal engineers shot-down or ignored by leadership at companies like Microsoft, Google, etc. While Tim Cook certainly drove the valuation of Apple up during his tenure, one of the most common criticisms was that Apple stopped innovating and more recently their quality bar has been dropping. |
| |
| ▲ | kllrnohj a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Isn't he the entire reason Nvidia invested so heavily in tensor cores before AI even became a massive market mover? Nvidia's tensor core investment is from 2017. People were already talking about AI at the time (OpenAI had already been founded, for example), and ML was everywhere. They also made that investment when they already knew they had the gaming market locked up tight. AMD as a whole but especially AMD's graphics division was all but dead & buried at the time, so Nvidia was free to do anything at all risk free. | |
| ▲ | everythingswan 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel like it's worth repeating that he gets credit for the decisions he has made, while it's also true that someone else would also see this demand, maybe earlier maybe later, and that the economy and shareholders would benefit. The point I'm making, and I think the one you're responding to, is that he didnt do something so magical that wouldn't have been done otherwise. It's a counterpoint to "this guy did so much, we would be nothing without him" and using that as a way to excuse his bad decisions. Again, credit for putting yourself in the position to capitalize. Credit for executing. But it's pretty likely that the world would not be substantially different if Nvidia has been another company and Jensen was some guy working at MS. | | |
| ▲ | dmonitor 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think the Tensor decision was very impactful to both the direction of AI tech and Nvidia as a company, though. I can't judge how much of the decision to invest in that technology was his but assuming he had a significant proportion of influence in that decision, he deserves a significant portion of the credit. A different person in the same position might not have seen the potential of machine learning at scale and not been willing to point their GPUs at the problem. They basically invested in pickaxes a decade before the gold rush, and people only found out about the gold because pickaxes were pretty convenient | | |
| ▲ | bar8uyr a day ago | parent [-] | | Not really. Nvidias gpu architecture was tensor.. It is useful for other things like AI. That wasn't a decision to create AI other than it was what they had. They landed on their feet. They didn't invest in pickaxes, they had the right pickaxe at the right time. | | |
| ▲ | formerly_proven a day ago | parent [-] | | Revisionist nonsense. Turing introduced tensor cores which were largely useless on launch, but massively increased transistor count and die size. It was entirely a bet on future and emerging applications. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ozgung a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Giving Jensen credit for creating literally all of the value from Nvidia seems really over the top. He was the cofounder, president and CEO since 1993. Nvidia hired/created CUDA in 2004 and made it central to its strategy. That’s almost 20 years before the current AI boom. GPUs, as you know, are just Graphics processors and there is no reason to use them for AI. The only reason for their popularity in AI is CUDA. Because in 2012 Alex Krizhevsky, along with Sutskever and Hinton trained AlexNet to win the ImageNet competition and started the current AI revolution. One of their secrets was using a graphics accelerator (GPU) as a supercomputer to train larger neural networks. This was only possible thanks to CUDA. After 14 years CUDA is still the industry standard for training neural networks. That strategy converted the 90s 3D accelerator startup into the most valuable company of the world today. But after today, they’re just a standard chipmaker with no vision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA |
|
| ▲ | Pavilion2095 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
|
| ▲ | neya 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's easy to dismiss someone's life's work when you aren't the one in their shoes. > This would happen even if the counterfactual CEO was incompetent. Tell that to Intel's ex-CEO. |
| |
