It sure is tempting to make it seem like a plan. Nvidia had been through cyclical financial situations before, most recently with crypto mining. Jensen had had to know he was riding a tiger. I doubt he planned his exit, but he must be a little relieved. It will be interesting to see what Elon does. I don't think Elon can let go.
> In an August meeting, Huang belittled Kress for questioning the deals, calling her “a deer in the headlights”. To justify why Nvidia needed to financially backstop OpenAI and smaller cloud providers to keep buying its GPUs, Huang admitted that Nvidia was caught in a massive squeeze.
Are these two sentences related? Is it saying Jensen questioned her on the circular financing? Or was she questioning him? A bit lost on that
There seems to be some evidence of "GPUs sitting in warehouses awaiting to be plugged in". But it seems to be mostly/only Ed Zitron pushing the agenda that it's not as planned and that there is oversupply of GPUs.
All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI compute (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
Nvidia might have been trying to spread the demand over more providers (neoclouds, and seemingly China) and provided financing to enable that.
It's not clear that this means there is an oversupply of reserved wafer capacity and Nvidia GPUs. But if datacenter construction slows down it might affect the GPU demand as they can't be plugged in.
> There seems to be some evidence of "GPUs sitting in warehouses awaiting to be plugged in". But it seems to be mostly/only Ed Zitron pushing the agenda that it's not as planned and that there is oversupply of GPUs.
> All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI computing (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
The two things are not in the opposition at all. You need datacenter to plug the chip in. If you dont have the datacenter already build, you cant use the chip.
The question is if it's planned by the purchasers. That they have datacenter capacity coming online according to plan and any "GPUs in warehouses" is just the plan to ensure there are chips to install when the datacenters are ready.
Or that they purchased out of fear, to corner the market, or expecting datacenter capacity that is delayed; and will soon stop purchasing as they don't have datacenter capacity coming online to install the chips they already bought. And noone else neither has that datacenter capacity.
All I know is when pricing GPU systems for work, I'm getting lead times across the board of 30+ weeks. And the main wait isn't on RAM or disk or anything else, but GPU.
So I don't buy the "GPUs waiting in warehouses" thing.
They're getting stolen from trucks on the highway!
> [...] pushing the agenda that it's not as planned and that there is oversupply of GPUs.
I don't read that it is not as planned, there is high demand from everyone but it appears to be similar to the over recruitment of engineers. They have FOMO, and they also want to block competitors.
> All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI compute (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
I certainly have not had any issues getting as much access as I would like. It just costs. Which would imply that the scarcity is manufactured to drive up pricing rather than availability.
> if datacenter construction slows down it might affect the GPU demand as they can't be plugged in.
I think this is the crux of the matter from Nvidia's point of view, that's if they weren't already impacted by the power limitations for customer installations.
> I certainly have not had any issues getting as much access as I would like. It just costs.
It just costs, because demand is high, supply is low, if it was opposite, it would have been like in 2018s, you could get 128Gb RAM server from Hetzner for 50-80 EUR, now it starts at 170 EUR (3x)
There was a post about how growth in the data center space was slowing, so AI must be over. The evidence seems to be that we've reached whatever growth capacity existed or was planned, rather than any drop off in demand.
I could never track Zitrons argument. I would not be surprised if there are gpus sitting around, we have known for at least the past year that hyperscalers have been unable to build enough data centers. They continue to state demand exceeding supply, that’s kind of why the neoclouds have even become a thing. It does not indicate to me that those gpus are not going to be used or even if companies overpaid for them.
The argument makes sense (but I don't know if it's based on true facts). His claim is basically that hyperscalers want, say, 1M GPUs in the next 10 years, 100k per year, since that's how many they can install. NVIDIA instead gives them a deal saying "you either buy 300k this year, or we won't sell any to you next year" - the goal being to make it look like demand is much higher than it is this year, or at least to recognize revenue much earlier than normal (since those extra 200k GPUs become revenue this year instead of being spread over the next two).
Ehhh I mean sure maybe Nvidia juiced demand for a year. Maybe hyperscalers have bought more capacity than they can use for the next 5 years. It’s possible but again it misses the demand picture. Demand has not changed and only grown. Sure there is a constraint but that will breed innovation and eventually things will come online, those that over committed will suffer.
It actually matters quite a bit - because it means that the picture of demand that you get from the outside may be wildly skewed. Say that it was all true that NVIDIA is secretly selling chips illegally to China and secretly forcing companies to take deliveries early (again, serious claims that I can't at all claim to know are true, and I'm not even sure I personally believe!). You come from the outside and see that it's become very hard to buy more GPUs, so you think that NVIDIA is selling all of its production to barely cover the current year's needs of the non-Chinese market, then your estimation of the total demand for GPUs is going to be off by a significant margin.
> NVIDIA is secretly selling chips illegally to China
This has always been my theory for why we see more GPU sales than we see coming online.
I do think that things like this muddy the demand signal a lot, which may have much, much broader repercussions than just Nvidia. Have Nvidia been doing enough shady stuff that they end up like Enron? Unlikely, but it's entirely possible that they end up like Cisco, still there but not back to their current stock price for ~20 years.
Explanation not endorsement: The argument is that while end user demand for gpu compute may exceed currently online supply, for Nvidia to be able to keep the revenue up, the demand will have to exceed not just currently online supply but also the supply of gpus that have been manufactured and sold but not installed. Otherwise you get some point where neoclouds etc say “ok we have enough gpus for a long time we’re going to spend our money installing them, not buying more. And then suddenly Nvidia’s revenue drops.
Definitely get the idea what never clicks is he always uses it as a gotcha. I am not convinced there is pervasive circular financing. I am certain some entities have overcommit but based on current demand I don’t think it will be an issue for most entities. So maybe Nvidia juiced their earnings for a year or two, they will pay the price. The capacity will still come online.
I thought the argument was that Nvidia were requiring buyers to take immediate delivery of their purchase and wouldn't let them secure future parts or something like that. This was forcing hyperscalars to store their GPUs until they actually had data centers online.
This whole buildout is one of the largest construction projects ever - there will definitely be oversupply hotspots even for items that are in super short supply. I could easily imagine $1B+ of top-tier chips just sitting around in a warehouse for months on end because of difficult planning problems. That's not a sign of any sort of crisis.
> All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI compute (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
That just means the price point is wrong. They might say they want to buy more racks to increase supply and increase profit, but turning away customers is not what they're doing in a market where prices turn on a dime.
Of course they were. They bought up literally as much as they could manage, because anything they didn't would be bought up by someone else. It's literally a use it or lose it market right now. This is not a problem. Just stockpile it.
…. But they’re not using it? Why not buy when you’re ready?
Unless you’re convinced you’re going to be able to build faster than you can buy _in the future_ of further increased AI demand and easy painless data center construction.
If you wanted in early you’re competing against companies that have what, 1/4 of the worlds resources at their disposal, in a regulation free political environment, with the only downside being if you never get space to plug them in you can likely sell them to someone else at a profit. It’s just crypto 2.0 economics but with bigger players.
This AI investment boom has always been about obsession with the exponential growth of the future, trying to get ahead of it. So absolutely they were getting as much as they could possibly have in preparation for a future where they can't get any more. They didn't wanna give up any of that ground.
"It's literally a use it or lose it market right now."
Are you sure? The point of this stockpiling was to create that impression. Now that you have data that that foundation behind that impression is manufactured and faked, you need to reconsider everything that was resting on that foundation. The demand is just so incredible needs to be reexamined from scratch now in light of the active attempts to forge that signal.
It is also worth remembering that this is a prime example of a situation that is not black or white. The absolute size of the demand, however large it may be, is not the question. It's the size relative to the supply, supply which includes all the pumping shenanigans that are coming into the light. The "AI bubble" has never been if there is demand or if the tech has real use, it has always been a relative question about if the build out could possibly make economic sense.
signed closed source drivers for hardware that can restrict which algorithms can be run on it locally... temporally...
edit: i'd willingly bet that AMD has a backroom deal to tank their performance and options to encourage this homogenous deployment overseas.
swallow the hook.
Given that you practically cannot buy memory or storage right now because all of the capacity is taken up by hyperscalers... even if it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's still currently fulfilled
That just represents the inertia of the whole system operating on old assumptions, given that it's only still early in the process of coming to light in a public way how much of the frantic purchasing has literally been sitting in a warehouse, depreciating. I mean, I've been pretty suspicious of this for literally years now, but it's been a "conspiracy theory" that this amazing demand is manufactured by a variety of financial hacks rather than just pure demand that the system as a whole has not paid attention to because number was going up, do not question number going up lest the number stop going up.
You need to apply first-principles thinking to this sort of scenario. Beliefs like the demand is crazy do not just exist floating through space; they exist on top of a specific set of facts and deductions from those facts, which can be very easy to forget when a fact seems to be true for a long period of time. When the set of facts and deductions a conclusion rests on are found to be faulty, the conclusions need to be re-examined from scratch. It is not generally impossible that a fact could still end up being true, just for different reasons.
However in this specific case, it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. If the shortage has been manufactured, then all assumptions around demand and possible profitability have to be completely re-examined. Once the system digests this, because these things do take some time, it can cease to be a "use it or lose it" market very, very quickly, and turn incredibly quickly into a "liquidate everything you can while it still has some sort of value" because of massive, massive oversupply. What is the value of a rack of nVidia processors that nobody can turn on? What is the value of a rack of nVidia processors that nobody can turn on when there are warehouses' worth of the things? Anyone who blind operates on "it's a use it or lose it market" will lose their shirts on the transactions. "It's a use it or lose it market" is not a foundation; it is contingent on a lot of things, some of which are being shown to be false.
To be fair I did say "right now". The demand hasn't stopped quite yet.
I look forward to the next R710 where you can just buy enterprise grade servers for a few hundred bucks and as long as you have somewhere to put a hurricane level of noise, you can Just Have terabytes of memory at home. Or many-GPU in this case.
I'm sure Nvidia would have no issue selling this "avalanche" if they just dropped prices a bit
We went with AMD for our $300k AI server, then after two months of delays were told it will be delayed another 10 months. Getting the same amount of VRAM from Nvidia remains out of our budget
Meanwhile "reasonably-sized" cards like a RTX 6000 Pro Blackwell or even a consumer RTX 5080 still trade for twice what they cost in January
Honestly agreed. I would gladly switch back from AMD if Nvidia lost their multiplier over how it was a few years ago (and got rid of that new power connector). But my few thousand is nothing to Oracle and co's hundreds of billions. Even your $300k. So if the circular financing does pay off, it'll pay off big.
Can they afford to drop the prices without causing investor panic? Feels like Nvidia needs to constantly exceed all expectations to justify their share value. And if their share value drops, it might have a negative impact on their ability to finance their own customers, and if their customers run out of funding, they’re gonna have even more trouble shifting units.
Yes this is 100% about stock price/perception. Every single piece of Nvidia hardware is being scalped at the moment; they must be averaging 2x MSRP, upping supply is not real problem.
Radeon AI PRO R9700 32G gpu with the recent CUDA-free LLM software... now punches way above its budget class. They are cheap as most folks haven't figured out the recent performance hacks yet.
They are still everywhere, and who cares if it takes 14 hours instead of 6 hours if the task gets done. =3
Nobody ever listens to the CFO and they should. The one person who actually keeps a company on track is the person who looks at the actual numbers. I have seen this over and over it’s a freaking meme.
I mean, even if the ship were sinking, it's not like the plan is stupid per se.
It's a neat plan. Keep prices high, circularly finance so that you still have customers, getting ownership of other firms and effectively having lower prices.
It's a superb plan for NVIDIA, and then of course, people try to get around that plan: we Europeans obviously want to be able to do AI, and if we aren't getting the circular financing will of course want to make our own chips and do our own circular financing, or at least have normal prices. Google, Amazon, etc. obviously don't want to pay with equity, so they make their own chips.
I don't think it has to be nonsense. I think it's a good plan, it's just that anybody who wants to exist or be their own thing is fighting against it as they of course should.
In the end I hope for a competitive DL accelerator market with prices 1/5th or less of what they are now. High prices tend to lead to high prices though.
I am saying the cultivated hysteria is nonsense, not that nvidia’s strategy is.
Nvidia were notorious assholes to work with 20 years ago, but people persisted in doing so because they needed to. It would not be remotely surprising if their strategies involved concepts many fond unpalatable even if highly effective.
I think the plan sounds like a normal, sound business idea which has a chance of working but which involves beating both us Europeans, Google, Amazon and many others, and I think it's plausible that it's actually what they were trying to do.
But I agree that there may be some mud slinging involved too, and I suppose I see the mud in this case as a plausible and reasonable plan over which there's internal conflict because it's a big plan that involves beating so many capable people.
I also think the plan, if it's real, is a hard plan to beat. For us Europeans to beat it, the politicians would basically have to pick capable people and tasking them with doing the technically correct thing, and I suspect that people are prodding them to do that, but that they can't tell prodding from the right person from prodding from a person who wants them to pick his guys to do it. So I think the plan still has a chance against us, and who knows whether it has a chance against the others. Maybe with lower prices.
This article inaccurately paraphrases actual journalism at the WSJ. That article does not use the word “excess” once. They can have an avalanche of wafers coming at them without it being excessive. You can make that inference but that exact statement cannot be attributed to Huang, per the actual reporting.
The actual quote from the actual article: “ Then he went on to describe the situation the company was in. Major cloud providers were running away from Nvidia, making plans to use alternative chips and lessen their reliance on the firm. Even worse, Huang said, the vast supply of chip wafers and memory Nvidia had committed to buying were coming at him like an "avalanche."”
Good work pointing this out. One of the great things about AI is eventually people are going to learn to stop trusting these kinds of websites “it’s all AI slop” and revert back to paid journalism because while the writing can be done by AI, the research and verification largely cannot.
Or so I hope. More likely is people will continue to engage with low-quality information and come to believe all sorts of nonsense, misquotes? Conspiracy theories, and more as they always have…
Journalism was always the lowest of the low of vocations.
It isn't surprising that a simple robot can do it just as well as your run of the mill scribbler.
There is nothing good to go back to because there was nothing good about journalism at any point in the history of mankind.
These freaks don't actually coldly manipulate you with sensationalist headlines, they are exactly as excited to write pages about gruesome family murder as the text suggests.
Now that they compete with TikTok sending you tragedy after tragedy right into your pineal gland, it has been a rough patch to be a traditional corpse picture snatcher.
I personally put a fairly high degree of value in the 'genuine' investigative journalist you're referring to.
The more recent spate of sensationalist journalists however are less remarkable. The ones that parrot headlines from other places, or worse paraphrase to make them get more views.
I absolutely agree that those who do not take their jobs seriously are not praiseworthy.
My pushback stems from what I perceive as a lopsided amount of ire directed at "journalists" without nuance.
I don't think most people make any sort of distinction when they voice this ire, as we see above with the commenter I initially responded to decrying "journalism" as the "lowest of vocations" and claiming it has never had any value.
Clickbait/yellow journalism has always been the cost of having a free press. We should shame those people when we see them, but should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Most if not all dev jobs require strong AI skills now.
You can use AI to fully automate the job search and application process and spam job apps at a pace you would never be able to do by hand.
You can do a project with AI and build an AI native app that you can demo during an interview to prove you have AI skills.
It works and if you're not doing this as a dev because you think AI will just "blow over", that's not going to happen and you're just putting yourself in a weaker position every day.
Level -1: People who are completely against AI and don't use it on principle (anti-AI). You see some people like this on HN and Reddit.
Level 0: People who use ChatGPT/Claude for personal stuff, maybe even some work, but mostly chatting. Usually they've used free accounts or Copilot.
Level 1: People who use Cowork/Claude Code/Codex for work in non-IT.
Level 2 and up: People who use Claude Code/Codex for work in IT. Then it's a matter of what you've created, how many users you support, and so on.
Of course people who are researchers for Anthropic/OpenAI and other labs are in their own category, far ahead of anyone else just because they have access to stuff the public doesn't.
My hot take is that the avalanche of wafers and memory is actually Nvidia's secret advantage, because that avalance is coming to Nvidia and not its competitors and customers! (But I repeat myself.)
I suspect that this massive supply-chain advantage, locked in by Nvidia's massive monopoly cash flow, is a huge factor in keeping other competitors like TPUs and Trainium etc catching on; they simply cannot acquire the necessary volume of memory at a competitive enough price-point.
jimnotgym | 10 hours ago
Zigurd | 10 hours ago
dzonga | 10 hours ago
cyanydeez | 10 hours ago
There are, however, reports that there are a bunch of "dark chips" that data centers can't bring online because of missing power requirements.
ddxv | 10 hours ago
Are these two sentences related? Is it saying Jensen questioned her on the circular financing? Or was she questioning him? A bit lost on that
[OP] oscarfr | 10 hours ago
All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI compute (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
Nvidia might have been trying to spread the demand over more providers (neoclouds, and seemingly China) and provided financing to enable that.
It's not clear that this means there is an oversupply of reserved wafer capacity and Nvidia GPUs. But if datacenter construction slows down it might affect the GPU demand as they can't be plugged in.
watwut | 10 hours ago
The two things are not in the opposition at all. You need datacenter to plug the chip in. If you dont have the datacenter already build, you cant use the chip.
[OP] oscarfr | 10 hours ago
The question is if it's planned by the purchasers. That they have datacenter capacity coming online according to plan and any "GPUs in warehouses" is just the plan to ensure there are chips to install when the datacenters are ready.
Or that they purchased out of fear, to corner the market, or expecting datacenter capacity that is delayed; and will soon stop purchasing as they don't have datacenter capacity coming online to install the chips they already bought. And noone else neither has that datacenter capacity.
watwut | 9 hours ago
They will be selling better chips in 4 months.
esseph | 10 hours ago
So I don't buy the "GPUs waiting in warehouses" thing.
They're getting stolen from trucks on the highway!
happymellon | 10 hours ago
I don't read that it is not as planned, there is high demand from everyone but it appears to be similar to the over recruitment of engineers. They have FOMO, and they also want to block competitors.
> All hyperscalers have in the last 2 months stated that they have more demand for AI compute (I guess GPUs & their own chips) than they can supply.
I certainly have not had any issues getting as much access as I would like. It just costs. Which would imply that the scarcity is manufactured to drive up pricing rather than availability.
> if datacenter construction slows down it might affect the GPU demand as they can't be plugged in.
I think this is the crux of the matter from Nvidia's point of view, that's if they weren't already impacted by the power limitations for customer installations.
infecto | 10 hours ago
throwaw12 | 10 hours ago
It just costs, because demand is high, supply is low, if it was opposite, it would have been like in 2018s, you could get 128Gb RAM server from Hetzner for 50-80 EUR, now it starts at 170 EUR (3x)
maxerickson | 10 hours ago
infecto | 10 hours ago
tsimionescu | 10 hours ago
infecto | 9 hours ago
Zitrons thesis is half baked.
tsimionescu | 9 hours ago
disgruntledphd2 | 7 hours ago
This has always been my theory for why we see more GPU sales than we see coming online.
I do think that things like this muddy the demand signal a lot, which may have much, much broader repercussions than just Nvidia. Have Nvidia been doing enough shady stuff that they end up like Enron? Unlikely, but it's entirely possible that they end up like Cisco, still there but not back to their current stock price for ~20 years.
collinmcnulty | 9 hours ago
infecto | 9 hours ago
EPWN3D | 9 hours ago
AdamN | 10 hours ago
Y_Y | 6 hours ago
That just means the price point is wrong. They might say they want to buy more racks to increase supply and increase profit, but turning away customers is not what they're doing in a market where prices turn on a dime.
LoganDark | 10 hours ago
rconti | 10 hours ago
Unless you’re convinced you’re going to be able to build faster than you can buy _in the future_ of further increased AI demand and easy painless data center construction.
threetonesun | 10 hours ago
LoganDark | 10 hours ago
jerf | 10 hours ago
Are you sure? The point of this stockpiling was to create that impression. Now that you have data that that foundation behind that impression is manufactured and faked, you need to reconsider everything that was resting on that foundation. The demand is just so incredible needs to be reexamined from scratch now in light of the active attempts to forge that signal.
It is also worth remembering that this is a prime example of a situation that is not black or white. The absolute size of the demand, however large it may be, is not the question. It's the size relative to the supply, supply which includes all the pumping shenanigans that are coming into the light. The "AI bubble" has never been if there is demand or if the tech has real use, it has always been a relative question about if the build out could possibly make economic sense.
tosapple | 9 hours ago
edit: i'd willingly bet that AMD has a backroom deal to tank their performance and options to encourage this homogenous deployment overseas. swallow the hook.
LoganDark | 9 hours ago
jerf | 8 hours ago
You need to apply first-principles thinking to this sort of scenario. Beliefs like the demand is crazy do not just exist floating through space; they exist on top of a specific set of facts and deductions from those facts, which can be very easy to forget when a fact seems to be true for a long period of time. When the set of facts and deductions a conclusion rests on are found to be faulty, the conclusions need to be re-examined from scratch. It is not generally impossible that a fact could still end up being true, just for different reasons.
However in this specific case, it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. If the shortage has been manufactured, then all assumptions around demand and possible profitability have to be completely re-examined. Once the system digests this, because these things do take some time, it can cease to be a "use it or lose it" market very, very quickly, and turn incredibly quickly into a "liquidate everything you can while it still has some sort of value" because of massive, massive oversupply. What is the value of a rack of nVidia processors that nobody can turn on? What is the value of a rack of nVidia processors that nobody can turn on when there are warehouses' worth of the things? Anyone who blind operates on "it's a use it or lose it market" will lose their shirts on the transactions. "It's a use it or lose it market" is not a foundation; it is contingent on a lot of things, some of which are being shown to be false.
LoganDark | 8 hours ago
I look forward to the next R710 where you can just buy enterprise grade servers for a few hundred bucks and as long as you have somewhere to put a hurricane level of noise, you can Just Have terabytes of memory at home. Or many-GPU in this case.
wongarsu | 10 hours ago
We went with AMD for our $300k AI server, then after two months of delays were told it will be delayed another 10 months. Getting the same amount of VRAM from Nvidia remains out of our budget
Meanwhile "reasonably-sized" cards like a RTX 6000 Pro Blackwell or even a consumer RTX 5080 still trade for twice what they cost in January
[OP] oscarfr | 10 hours ago
Potentially less revenue and lower margins for Nvidia, but not necessarily supply they cannot get rid off.
Neywiny | 10 hours ago
Hamuko | 10 hours ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 | 10 hours ago
ZiiS | 9 hours ago
Joel_Mckay | 9 hours ago
They are still everywhere, and who cares if it takes 14 hours instead of 6 hours if the task gets done. =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty4lTwykmKY
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-radeon-ai-pro...
Stevvo | 10 hours ago
bix6 | 10 hours ago
gonzalohm | 10 hours ago
bix6 | 10 hours ago
fomoz | 9 hours ago
gonzalohm | 8 hours ago
clivedup | 8 hours ago
CEOs make the call, and I expect they do listen to the CFO.
mosura | 10 hours ago
It is all utter nonsense.
impossiblefork | 10 hours ago
It's a neat plan. Keep prices high, circularly finance so that you still have customers, getting ownership of other firms and effectively having lower prices.
It's a superb plan for NVIDIA, and then of course, people try to get around that plan: we Europeans obviously want to be able to do AI, and if we aren't getting the circular financing will of course want to make our own chips and do our own circular financing, or at least have normal prices. Google, Amazon, etc. obviously don't want to pay with equity, so they make their own chips.
I don't think it has to be nonsense. I think it's a good plan, it's just that anybody who wants to exist or be their own thing is fighting against it as they of course should.
In the end I hope for a competitive DL accelerator market with prices 1/5th or less of what they are now. High prices tend to lead to high prices though.
mosura | 10 hours ago
Nvidia were notorious assholes to work with 20 years ago, but people persisted in doing so because they needed to. It would not be remotely surprising if their strategies involved concepts many fond unpalatable even if highly effective.
impossiblefork | 10 hours ago
mosura | 9 hours ago
This whole thing is a mud slinging exercise.
impossiblefork | 9 hours ago
I think the plan sounds like a normal, sound business idea which has a chance of working but which involves beating both us Europeans, Google, Amazon and many others, and I think it's plausible that it's actually what they were trying to do.
But I agree that there may be some mud slinging involved too, and I suppose I see the mud in this case as a plausible and reasonable plan over which there's internal conflict because it's a big plan that involves beating so many capable people.
I also think the plan, if it's real, is a hard plan to beat. For us Europeans to beat it, the politicians would basically have to pick capable people and tasking them with doing the technically correct thing, and I suspect that people are prodding them to do that, but that they can't tell prodding from the right person from prodding from a person who wants them to pick his guys to do it. So I think the plan still has a chance against us, and who knows whether it has a chance against the others. Maybe with lower prices.
louiereederson | 10 hours ago
The actual quote from the actual article: “ Then he went on to describe the situation the company was in. Major cloud providers were running away from Nvidia, making plans to use alternative chips and lessen their reliance on the firm. Even worse, Huang said, the vast supply of chip wafers and memory Nvidia had committed to buying were coming at him like an "avalanche."”
empath75 | 10 hours ago
Joel_Mckay | 10 hours ago
It is the circle of clowns man... People have every right to also be annoyed with the blitz-scaling corporate collusion. =3
toddmorey | 10 hours ago
loco5niner | 8 hours ago
ericmay | 10 hours ago
Or so I hope. More likely is people will continue to engage with low-quality information and come to believe all sorts of nonsense, misquotes? Conspiracy theories, and more as they always have…
juleiie | 10 hours ago
There is nothing good to go back to because there was nothing good about journalism at any point in the history of mankind.
These freaks don't actually coldly manipulate you with sensationalist headlines, they are exactly as excited to write pages about gruesome family murder as the text suggests.
Now that they compete with TikTok sending you tragedy after tragedy right into your pineal gland, it has been a rough patch to be a traditional corpse picture snatcher.
segfaultex | 8 hours ago
The job of a journalist is not to be a "scribe" or "scribbler".
The job is to investigate, corroborate, and report. Journalism is what has exposed corruption in governments all over the world.
To reduce a profession down to its worst participants is an action rooted in emotion over reason.
Incipient | 6 hours ago
The more recent spate of sensationalist journalists however are less remarkable. The ones that parrot headlines from other places, or worse paraphrase to make them get more views.
segfaultex | 5 hours ago
My pushback stems from what I perceive as a lopsided amount of ire directed at "journalists" without nuance.
I don't think most people make any sort of distinction when they voice this ire, as we see above with the commenter I initially responded to decrying "journalism" as the "lowest of vocations" and claiming it has never had any value.
Clickbait/yellow journalism has always been the cost of having a free press. We should shame those people when we see them, but should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
blahblaher | 3 hours ago
irthomasthomas | 8 hours ago
irthomasthomas | 8 hours ago
Ouch! Sounds like they have an avalanche of excess chips coming their way and no customers to buy them.
oliwarner | 6 hours ago
juleiie | 10 hours ago
But far simpler explanation is just supply and demand. There is no need to craft some elaborate theories when the simplest one checks all the boxes.
jokoon | 10 hours ago
I think it should not.
I am also hoping companies would move a bit away from AI and start hiring more developers instead.
(yes I am unemployed)
fomoz | 9 hours ago
TheNewsIsHere | 9 hours ago
(Unless you’re an actual, bona fide expert in specific AI/ML fields, which isn’t the same as being able to effectively use any given kind of tool.)
fomoz | 9 hours ago
You can use AI to fully automate the job search and application process and spam job apps at a pace you would never be able to do by hand.
You can do a project with AI and build an AI native app that you can demo during an interview to prove you have AI skills.
It works and if you're not doing this as a dev because you think AI will just "blow over", that's not going to happen and you're just putting yourself in a weaker position every day.
franzb | 8 hours ago
CamperBob2 | 5 hours ago
fomoz | 4 hours ago
Level -1: People who are completely against AI and don't use it on principle (anti-AI). You see some people like this on HN and Reddit.
Level 0: People who use ChatGPT/Claude for personal stuff, maybe even some work, but mostly chatting. Usually they've used free accounts or Copilot.
Level 1: People who use Cowork/Claude Code/Codex for work in non-IT.
Level 2 and up: People who use Claude Code/Codex for work in IT. Then it's a matter of what you've created, how many users you support, and so on.
Of course people who are researchers for Anthropic/OpenAI and other labs are in their own category, far ahead of anyone else just because they have access to stuff the public doesn't.
orbifold | 9 hours ago
keeda | 5 hours ago
I suspect that this massive supply-chain advantage, locked in by Nvidia's massive monopoly cash flow, is a huge factor in keeping other competitors like TPUs and Trainium etc catching on; they simply cannot acquire the necessary volume of memory at a competitive enough price-point.