utopiah

I'm also no stockologist and I agree but I that's not my point. The stock should be high but that might already have been factored in, namely this is not a new situation, so theoretically that's been priced in since investors have understood it. My point anyway isn't about the price itself but rather the narrative (or reason, as the example you mention on backlog and lack of competition) that investors themselves believe.

I'm not sure if you played PCVR in the Summer but imagine that in a tiny room... it's just way too hot. Again I'm NOT saying it's good, or bad, I'm only saying you made assumption about OP usage. I'm not sure if you tried CloudXR but basically, it works and it's not that complex to setup (e.g 1h) so it's relatively faster and cheaper than building and owning a gaming PC.

I don't understand why you are even arguing about a legitimate usage.

Sure yet it's a perfectly legitimate one. I'm not OP, it might be exactly their use case.

You do if you are rendering in the cloud, e.g NVIDIA CloudXR. Not sure what OP plans to do.

Not a lawyer but if you have an email that says you can, I'd argue it's override the ToS assuming the person giving permission actually legally can.

Anyway I bet what they avoid is reselling access so I believe as long as you don't pay for yourself then resell to others you'll be OK.

Stuff like LLMs or ConvNets (and the likes) can already be used to do some pretty amazing stuff that we could not do a decade ago, there is really no need to shit rainbows and puke glitter all over it.

I'm shitting rainbows and puking glitter on a daily basis BUT it's not against AI as a field, it's not against AI research, rather it's against :

• catastrophism and fear, even eschatology, used as a marketing tactic
• open systems and research that become close
• trying to lock a market with legislation
• people who use a model, especially a model they don't even have e.g using a proprietary API, and claim they are an AI startup
• C-levels decision that anything now must include AI
• claims that this or that skill is soon to be replaced by AI with actually no proof of it
• meaningless test results with grand claim like "passing the bar exam" used as marketing tactics
• claims that it scales, it "just needs more data", not for .1% improvement but for radical change, e.g emergent learning
• for-profit (different from public research) scrapping datasets without paying back anything to actual creators
• ignoring or lying about non renewable resource consumption for both training and inference
• relying on "free" or loss leader strategies to dominate a market
• promoting to be doing the work for the good of humanity then signing exclusive partnership with a corporation already fined for monopoly practices

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few but basically none of those criticism are technical. None of those criticism is about the current progress made. Rather, they are about business practices.

Their valuation is because there’s STILL a lineup a mile long for their flagship GPUs.

Genuinely curious, how do you know where the valuation, any valuation, come from?

This is an interesting story, and it might be factually true, but as far as I know unless someone has actually asked the biggest investor WHY they did bet on a stock, nobody why a valuation is what it is. We might have guesses, and they might even be correct, but they also change.

I mentioned it few times here before but my bet is yes, what you did mention BUT also because the same investors do not know where else do put their money yet and thus simply can't jump boats. They are stuck there and it might again be become they initially though the demand was high with nobody else could fulfill it, but I believe that's not correct anymore.

Unfortunately it's part of the marketing, thanks OpenAI for that "Oh no... we can't share GPT2, too dangerous" then... here it is. Definitely interesting then but now World shattering. Same for GPT3 ... but through exclusive partnership with Microsoft, all closed, rinse and repeat for GPT4. It's a scare tactic to lock what was initially open, both directly and closing the door behind them through regulation, at least trying to.

I’m sure whatever the next fad is will require a GPU to run huge calculations.

I also bet it will, cf my earlier comment on rendering farm and looking for what "recycles" old GPUs https://lemmy.world/comment/12221218 namely that it makes sense to prepare for it now and look for what comes next BASED on the current most popular architecture. It might not be the most efficient but probably will be the most economical.

move on to the next [...] eager to see what they come up with next.

That's a point I'm making in a lot of conversations lately : IMHO the bubble didn't pop BECAUSE capital doesn't know where to go next. Despite reports from big banks that there is a LOT of investment for not a lot of actual returns, people are still waiting on where to put that money next. Until there is such a place, they believe it's still more beneficial to keep the bet on-going.

there’s a lot of potential in analytics with AI

I'd argue there is a lot of potential in any domain with basic numeracy. In pretty much any business or institution somebody with a spreadsheet might help a lot. That doesn't necessarily require any Big Data or AI though.

They just design them.

It's not trivial though. They also managed to lock dev with CUDA.

That being said I don't think they were "just" lucky, I think they built their luck through practices the DoJ is currently investigating for potential abuse of monopoly.