Comments like this make me wonder whether I'm on reddit or HN.

The future trajectory of AI isn't tied to Nvidia's stock in the same way the web didn't thrive or die on Cisco being the most valuable company in the world 24 years ago.

Perhaps not in general, but if the barrier of entry is radically lowered - such as if a new technique that drastically lowers the compute required for training is discovered - then Nvidia and a whole host of startups will lose lot of value. A lot of the positions assumes LLMs will remain SotA in the foreseeable future, which is not a bet I'd take.

Even if that doesn't happen, there will be a lot of consolidation and bankruptcies when AI funding dries up when category winners become clear and investors cur their losses - the same happened suddenly when the dot-com bubble burst, and little more gently with "web 2.0" startups

If the barrier to entry is lowered I don't see Nvidia losing a dime... Jevons paradox tells us that further massive amounts of training will occur in multi-modality and grounding models to reality. That would then kick off the race to true reasoning and AGI/ASI, and if achieved, all bets are off after that point.

If no training breakthrough occurs, then your second option is much more likely.

> Jevons paradox tells us that further massive amounts of training will occur in multi-modality and grounding models to reality

I was thinking along the lines of how Sun Microsystems and big-iron were dethroned by good-enough commodity x86 servers + Linux. The two coexisted... for a short while.

All while x86 morphed to x64 and gained back many of the features of big iron.

Much of the problem with PC software at the time was one of scaling. Getting software to use multiple processors effectively took decades, but the cost difference and ability to actually get the hardware cheap allowed it to win the market... then grow back into systems with hundreds of cores and terabytes of memory because the needs for big iron didn't go away.

With AI/training/LLMs/NNs scale, at least appears, intrinsic. We see this in the animal world. We see insects with a very basic brain capable of interacting with the world and surviving. Then we see mammals with larger brains capable of far more as the scale/complexity/interconnectivity of their brains increases. At least from what we can tell, throwing more power at any given problem will give us a better solution.

Yeah what. That guy above you is absolutely blind.

AI is more like Apple and less like the internet. Your rabid fanaticism is what convinces me of its value… not it’s actual value.

"Intelligence isn't valuable" --Guy on HN.

Not all AI is hype. We are just surrounded by so much AI hype it’s easy to forget things like Co-pilot didn’t exist just a couple years ago. To say there’s no value in having an assistant to write code at your direction is incorrect.

The iPhone was legitimately revolutionary. I’m not disagreeing with you. I don’t see its value surviving commoditization.

>Your rabid fanaticism

Recognizing value isn't "Rabid fanaticism" lol.

Except 24 years ago you didn't need Cisco to write HTML. Your analogy is not correct and it tells me you didn't bother to read my edit.

I really shouldn't have to explain how this bubble ends.

Stock prices go up and down. A stock downswing very rarely has economical consequences for the company whose stock it is, and even more rarely does it have such consequences for other companies.

Enterprise customers are building their own internal tools, doesn't mean "AI" is dead. It just means useless API wrappers aren't the golden ticket.

A bit of a cooldown on api wrappers would be good. All these crappy startups which have no more value than just gpt4/opus are bizarre. Can’t believe any of them are doing real money.

doubt any correction for NVDA is coming any time soon. big tech is only just started ramping up on v1 model training..

First: Ilya in particular will be able to raise easily regardless of general market conditions because of his experience and track record.

Second:

> allow me to assist in your understanding of the bigger picture: large funds use VCs as money mules to increase Nvidia GPU sales through investments in AI startups and this is not sustainable.

You have to be trolling (or I'm misunderstanding?) if you're arguing that a large proportion of VC investments are at the direction of LPs who are long NVIDIA, for the sole purpose of furthering that long.

> if large funds are unloading their shares, if executives are cashing out their stock options, who is left to buy the bags?

Literally the buyers purchasing the shares that the large funds and executives are selling.

This kind of wild speculation is not encouraged over here, and most people don't want garbage in the comments that they have to sift through, so "just ignore it" is not a valid defense. See the comment section of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Literally the same people are left with the bag after each bubble

People who buy stocks based on hype, feed bull runs, and proceed to hold and try to time the market, "coincidentally" are usually left holding their bags. That in no way implies any kind of rigging beyond the basic dynamics of the stock market.