You might be interested in this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069

You're assuming it's even a person when the author admitted they used an LLM for writing this article.

But people don't want to read something they can tell is AI, and thus you lose more authority and respect from your readers. If you are interested in getting your words out, and presumably you are as otherwise this wouldn't be a public article, the use of AI does in fact hurt that goal, ironic.

Finally, I will link this, about how "it's insulting to read your AI generated article:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069

I have a quibble here: the people who post in response don’t want to read content they know is AI-generated.

There exists some proportion of people who don’t mind and don’t care about it enough to comment on the topic.

The problem is deeper than that: The majority of hn readers seem to prefer the AI voice.

De gustibus non est disputandum

(The writers of HBO’s Westworld deserve a retroactive Emmy. We’re speedrunning to their speculative fantasy much sooner than anyone could have imagined.)

Or it's more like website bounces, they do care about it enough to close the tab but not enough to comment or specify exactly why they left on some comment section or feedback form.

Did you, or did you not, use any AI or LLMs in the process of writing this article?

Who cares?

A lot of people with disabilities are also using LLMs to level the playing field and to compete with non-disabled people.

Are you going to be the person who tells them they need to stay out, stop using this technology, and stay in their "place"?

Don't argue against a strawman, no one was disagreeing that disabled people use AI.

Once again I am reminded of the circular nature of money flowing around in this economy. Michael Burry even commented on this, citing it as rhyming like other economic failures previously.

We should all be worried. When a company invests in it's customers it is extra exposed to the risk of that customer going under. If OpenAI fails, Nvidia loses sales and loses the money it invested in OpenAI.

I imagine it's a similar story. If Intel fails, Nvidia loses sales and this investment.

Yes exactly, not sure why I'm being downvoted, other replies are talking about general economic money velocity as if that's somehow relevant to this specific case.

I interpreted your post like what "krupan" posted in the separate sub-thread ("This is a much tighter circle than any of us should be comfortable with"), but maybe others interpreted it differently (the words of your post are quite generic...). Cheers :o)

Stop worrying and figure out how to short it.

Money flowing in a circular manner is the definition of economy.

This is the reason we moved to using money instead of a barter system.

This is a much tighter circle than any of us should be comfortable with. There are some horrible examples of companies investing in their costumers and then losing big when those customers fail.

It’s a medium risk high reward strategy. You only fail here if all the customers fail, which admittedly there’s a chance of.

If one succeeds, and grows 10-100x, you are profitable. If a few succeed, you double your market cap.

Businesses fail long before all their customers fail. If Nvidia's sales decline and they lose their billions of dollars in investments at the same time you better believe their stock will tank. I'm not sure how you decided this is only medium risk. Especially when they have invested in customers with no profits (OpenAI) and/or severely depressed growth (Intel)

I did not say Nvidia does not have risk.

I specifically meant this circular investment idea is medium risk.

Of course Nvidia can tank if sales decline.

This dig at the relationships between these companies also seems odd to me. Isn't this fairly normal practice for companies within an industry? There are lots of examples of joint ventures, partnerships, alliances, investment and mergers and acquisitions between lots of other corporations that are in competition with each other. I don't see how it could be otherwise unless each corporation was entirely vertically integrated so that they never had to work with any other.

"There are lots of examples of joint ventures, partnerships, alliances, investment and mergers and acquisitions..."

And the deals Nvidia are making are different from all of those. Buying OpenAI stock so that OpenAI can buy Nvidia's products is very risky. Buying the management team and IP of Groq is a very weirdly structured deal. What was the benefit to Groq? What is the purpose of this Intel deal?

> Once again I am reminded of the circular nature of money flowing around in this economy.

Its called the velocity of money, its a thing see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

The problem is that there is all this capital and no place to put it, so yes it seems circular, but some of that is to be expected.

As for Burry, he recently called out the changes to how the big players are amortizing their capital expenses for all these data center build outs. He is correct in calling it out, but he's getting the wrong signal from it. Mores law died a long time ago, and now were basically hitting multiple walls at the same time: Node scaling at the chip fabs, power and cooling in the data center, and just more linear growth from product (because of all three factors).

Go back to 2008 ish time period. There were a lot of data centers that hit the wall with availability of power and cooling and they were hard problems to solve then. The solution was not to upgrade rather to "build new", and were seeing a lot of the same types of issues today.

Nvidia has unmaintainable margins, the memory manufacturing side is now in on the grift too... They are sucking up the profit while they can because the dip is going to be BRUTAL (likely a boon to consumers but neither here nor there).

Try machine translation not general LLM based ones. Google translate does use an LLM, Gemini, now for translation, but it preserves the nuances of your own speech instead of injecting the clear markers of LLMs like you'd get if you tried to do it via Gemini or ChatGPT directly.

So, write your replies in your native language then post them into Google translate, I guarantee it'll sound better and people won't think it's an LLM.

For one such example, see the years long fights in city halls over resource usage or utilization, such as building new developments for example. A corporation trying to get something done moving at that pace would, well, not get anything done. That is why worker owned co-ops, which you can create today even in this capitalist system we have, do not outcompete capitalist structures generally speaking.

You never know, Gaben is getting older. Who knows what the next CEO of Valve will do?

At least with Valve we can hope its gonna be okay for 4 reasons:

1. Even though Gabe is formally CEO he from his own words was barelly controllibg company for years. He spend more time on his other projects.

2. Flat structure and and a small team. I know few people who has worked at Valve and while there are some downsides company of ~400 employees with a lot of internal power play is just more resilient than normal corporation. Many of people on the team are just rich enough already and they dont need to go and cash out.

3. From what is publicly known Valve is family owned basically since Gabe own major part of company. And while a lot of people would hate example of e.g Ubisoft its good example how family controlled business often sink before selling out.

4. It would be just hard to sell Valve and remove control from the team without destroying both company and gaming community goodwill.

Yet I fully agree that Valve just like other company can be sold off just for userbase and run to the ground.

Valve just have better chance to stay customer friendly than your overall VC/PE/BlackRock owned corporation with 10,000 employees and 50 for-hire top managers / board directors.

Nothing, I am relaxing.

This depends entirely on your product and niche, we don't know that.

Its not a SaaS or monthly subscription product simply it is a one time [$49] fee digital service in which you can convert your face into 60+ animated doodles which will help you get attention on X & improves CTR.