• weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Nvidia definitely isn’t Enron. It’s all of Nvidia’s customers that are mini-Enrons.

    Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed.

    That’s not Nvidia. Nvidia is selling actual product as fast as they can make it at whatever price they want to charge.

    Nvidia’s customers, on the other hand, are the ones who have to justify buying billions of dollars of product from Nvidia and explaining how they plan to make a profit from that.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      OPENAI is probably the one that will be set to lose the most, and then oracle? i dont know if palintir fits into this, but THEIls company have been desperately trying to peddle his services to multiple countries already.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed

      • Sell chips to X

      • Receive stock in X

      • Value of stocks = discounted sum of future (fake) income

      • Booked as an asset on the balance sheet

      This is exactly like Enron but the underlying commodity isn’t energy, it’s compute.

      • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Nvidia sells plenty of GPUs for actual money, they are good for it.

        No, the real issue is the depreciation for the people owning GPUs. Your GPU will be usable for 4-6 years, and 2-4 of those years will be spent as ”the cheap old GPU. After that time, you need new GPUs. (And as the models are larger by then, you need moahr GPU)

        How the actual fuck do these people expect to get any ROI on that scale with those timeframes? With training, maybe the trained model can be an asset (lol), but for inference there are basically no residual benefits.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          enron sold plenty of gas and real things too: it’s the double handling that’s the problem; not the nature of the goods or services

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The relative size of the double handling is the potential problem. I think Nvidia is just trying to extend the gold rush for a bit longer.

        • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I feel like what sounds personally insane to us (and is, don’t get the wrong idea), to the people making such decisions the situation is more like -

          “Emerging market with unknown upside thanks to new and evolving capabilities, exploration and competitive advantage shaped and constrained, globally, by hardware capability. Not my money I’m betting, ‘risk’ is extreme opportunity for me, negative consequences borne by others. Let’s go”

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Do this:

            • Calculate the total power cost of running it at 100% load since 2014
            • Calculate Flops/Watt and compare with modern hardware
            • Calculate MTTF when running at 100% load. Remember that commercial support agreements are 4-5 years for a GPU, and if it dies after that, it stays dead.
            • In AI, consider the full failure domain (1 broken GPU = 7+ GPUs out of commission) for the above calculation.

            You’ll probably end up with 4-6 years as the usable lifetime of your billion dollar investment. This entire industry is insane. (GTX 1080 here. Was considering an upgrade until the RAM prices hit.)

    • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It depends on the customer. Microsoft, Google, Amazon all have the revenue to carry the debts they are taking on. Oracle, Chat GPT, Musk and others are waay more sketchy.

      The build out is going to take billions of dollars and these companies aren’t going to see a return for at least 5 years or more. The majors can carry that kind of debt load long term even if AI doesn’t pan out. Other businesses will struggle or go under if AI doesn’t bring the returns.

      The next major movers will be companies that do a lot of IT business consulting like IBM. They are going to be busy helping non IT focused firms incorporate AI into their business model.

      Finally if all these data centers pan out and the US keeps oscillating between shunning Renewables or Fossil fuels every time a new party comes to office we are going to have major problems with our energy infrastructure. Think energy bills as high as your mortgage within the next 5 years. Invest in utilities or energy companies and try to put solar and some kind of storage on your home.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 hours ago

      NVIDIA is producing and delivering GPUs. However this does NOT translate into income, and that’s what’s making it shady. These companies are paying in shares that will be worth nothing when it pops.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      It’s all of Nvidia’s customers that are mini-Enrons.

      I don’t think that those are faking profit. Well, I don’t have some comprehensive list, and maybe somewhere someone is, but not for the majority of purchases. It’s possible that they won’t wind up being long-term profitable, but there isn’t fraud involved in that.

      I don’t think that the Enron analogy is very applicable in general. Like, what people who are critical of the extent of AI investment are worried about is analogous to the dot-com bubble, where the returns to investors from companies didn’t warrant the level of investment and stock prices for many companies shot way up and then fell back down.

      EDIT: It’s fair to say that Nvidia is driving demand for its products. But…that may be quite sensible, since if you have a killer app or two explode, it can drive massive demand for the hardware that runs it. If you have capital available and control the best hardware out there, it may well make more sense to use that capital on building more demand for your product than to go and try and improve the product more. There’s only so many chip engineers available that Nvidia can hire, and unless they want to get into the “writing AI software” game themselves, which would have them compete with their customers, I’d think that that’s potentially a reasonable place to put their capital if they’re trying to improve their business potential.

      Nvidia sold a lot of hardware when cryptocurrency became popular. I think that it’s probably fairly safe to say that AI applications have considerably more potential to provide utility than does cryptocurrency.