• elgordino@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The trouble with the railways comparison is that after investing tons of cash the railways were built. With AI the GPUs have no value after 6 years (if that). So the investment must continue forever. It’s madness.

    • mustlane@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      With AI the GPUs have no value after 6 years

      What? GPUs don’t age. They might get old technologically wise, but they don’t just… die. The silicone chip itself doesn’t care about age.

      • elgordino@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        It’s not that they don’t technically work. It’s just they’re no longer efficient compared to newer versions that can do more with less power. So to remain competitive you need to upgrade otherwise your cost to execute a model is too high.

        Hyperscalers used to write GPU’s down to zero value after three years, over the last couple of years they’ve all increased this to six.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        But transistors break after what? 100’000 cycles? GPUs can get “used up”. And if your computing center has twice as much running costs due to old, less efficient hardware, it isn’t competitive.

        Edit: looks like transistors can partially recover with sleep cycles.

      • embed_me@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I’m not an expert but I was under the assumption that electronic components (including silicon chips and their internals) will age and give out on the decade timescale