AMD have a lot of money to lose.
George Hotz $5M OSS company - well, not so much.
https://pytorch.org/blog/pytorch-for-amd-rocm-platform-now-a...
>The software is called ROCm, it’s open source, and supposedly it works with PyTorch. Though I’ve tried 3 times in the last couple years to build it, and every time it didn’t build out of the box, I struggled to fix it, got it built, and it either segfaulted or returned the wrong answer. In comparison, I have probably built CUDA PyTorch 10 times and never had a single issue.
I had the same experience ~3 months ago. Gave up and switched to Nvidia 3090s for my workloads.
The parent post is surprised that they still aren't making the appropriate investments to make it work. They kind of started to do that a few years ago, but then it fell on the wayside without reaching even table stakes, which in my opinion would require providing a ROCm distribution that works out of the box for most of their recent consumer cards (i.e. those cards which the enthusiasts/students/advocates/researchers might use while choosing which software stack to learn, and afterward base corporate compute cluster purchasing decisions on whether they support the software they wrote for e.g. CUDA+Pytorch), and they seem to be failing at that.
My prediction is AMD is already working on this internally, except more oriented around PyTorch not Hotz's Tinygrad, which I doubt will get much traction.