this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
808 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
76415 readers
3814 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
apparently the bubble might not be as extreme as some people think because the major AI players are all being propped up by companies that actually produce revenues and profits
Like Nividia which... Oh all based on AI revenue.
And even though NVIDIA is better place as they do produce something, but the something in play has little value out of the AI bubble.
NVIDIA could be left holding the bag on a super increased capacity to produce something that nobody wants anymore (or at least nowhere near at the levels we have now) so they are still very much exposed.
I want cheap GPUs at home please!
I'd love this, but not Nvidia.
me too, but the GPU used for AI are not the same as what we would use at home.
maybe the factories can produce both kinds and they would be cheaper, but it is speculation at this point
You're delusional if you think GPUs are of little value. LLMs and fancy image generation are a bubble.
The gargantuan computational cost of running the machine learning processing that is now required for protein folding and molecular docking is not.
Sure, but the scientists doing those kinds of workflows don’t have anywhere near the money to burn on GPUs. Even before they had all of their funding cut off for being to gay or brown or whatever crap the Nazis have come up with.
I'm working in a lab that is purchasing a cluster with a price tag you wouldn't believe even if I could share it, which I can't. We are publicly funded. Scientists are buying this hardware, for this price, because the speed up we get is tremendous.
This is just a small part of the perpetual cycle of growth and contraction. Growth comes from breakthroughs and innovations. Contraction comes from mis-allocation of resources and the need to extract efficiency from the breakthrough and innovation.
So now everything is booming and growing. This will slow down and if it becomes efficient enough it will remain useful and accessible. If not, it will be discarded and another breakthrough will take its place.
Sure but do you need the absolute gargantuan capacity that is being built right now for that? if so, for how long and at what cost?
The point is not that GPU per se are of little value... the point is that what would you do with 10,000 rocket ships if you only have 1000 projects that may be able to use them? and what can those projects actually pay? can they cover the cost of the 10,000 rockets you built?
They're the ones selling shovels in this gold rush, though.
You know if you invest all your winnings into all the companies that buy your stuff so that they can buy more of your stuff, you are actually not generating any winnings.
Hard to say, really. Yes, MS can absorb loss if the value of their stake in OpenAI goes to $0 overnight, but how much of their stock value is based on expectations that they can sell cloud compute for billions of dollars? And how many private and institutional investors have a stake in that?
The problem is that the companies that actually produce revenues and profits are also in turn being propped up by AI.
such as?
What? there was no such thing a "bubble" around the Metaverse... (at least not the economic slang term "bubble")
From the first video of the Zuck presenting the idea, everyone just laugh it off... Meta did waste tons of money on it but they had the money to burn so there was no bubble at all in play here
If I am rich and stupid, I may think a pool in the roof of my house is a great idea. I can spend the value of the house having it built and then have the house collapse on me. Since I am rich, I can just buy another house or pay to rebuild it and that's the end... no bubble.
However, if I am pitching plans for pools on roofs... and millions of people buy into it, many of whom can barely afford my terrible plans, when the houses start collapsing, too many people will be left with no house or means to procure another one... that's a bubble
Meta verse was a scam to extract money from nft bros and web 3.0 "game" devs
lol, what? "Bubble" doesn't just mean something is expensive