Off-and-on trying out an account over at @[email protected] due to scraping bots bogging down lemmy.today to the point of near-unusability.

  • 44 Posts
  • 2.66K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • tal@lemmy.todaytoTechnology@lemmy.worldHow the AI ‘bubble’ compares to history
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I mean, in that kind of timeframe, there were pretty major shifts in transportation.

    For a long, long time, ships up rivers and along coasts was the way serious transportation happened.

    Then we had the canal-building era in the US. I assume that the UK did the same.

    searches

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_age

    Technology archaeologists and industrial historians date the American Canal Age from 1790 to 1855[1] based on momentum and new construction activity, since many of the older canals, although limited by locks that restricted boat sizes below the most economic capacities[b], nonetheless continued in service well into the twentieth century.[c]

    By 1855, canals were no longer the civil engineering work of first resort, for it was nearly always better—cheaper to build a railroad above ground than it was to dig a watertight ditch 6–8 feet (2–3 m) deep and provide it with water and make annual repairs for ice and freshet damages—even though the cost per ton mile on a canal was often cheaper in an operational sense, canals couldn’t be built along hills and dales, nor backed into odd corners, as could a railroad siding.

    So that was maybe sixty, seventy years before rail was really displacing it.

    EDIT: I guess what I’m trying to get at is that I don’t think that rail had a uniquely short era where it was the prime, go-to option compared to other transportation technologies…and I don’t think I’d say that the golden era was short enough to make the technology not a worthwhile investment, even if it was later, in significant part, superseded. A hundred years is a long time to wait around without engine-driven transportation, which would have been the alternative.


  • Like, the automobile? It looks like the boom in the UK they were talking about was in the 1840s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania

    Railway Mania was a stock market bubble in the railway industry of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1840s.

    There were primitive automobiles earlier, but the mass market automobile didn’t come around for a long time after that, and then it’ll have taken longer to get substantial marlet penetration.

    searches

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42182497

    It runs a bit off the edge — I don’t know how far back they had licensing and mileage data.

    1000009354

    But extrapolating from those lines, I’d guess that annual distance traveled in the UK in autos on roads surpassed rail only in the 1940s or so, about a hundred years later.

    That’s probably outside the investment horizon of people investing in the 1840s — in evaluating whether an investment is worthwhile, they won’t be considering returns a century hence.

    That being said, it is possible to maybe consider freight rail, and it’s possible that that works out differently. The US doesn’t use much passenger rail in 2025, but it does do quite a bit of freight rail; the two can be decoupled.

    EDIT: It can’t be too much earlier that road traffic could have risen, though, since mass-market motor vehicles weren’t much earlier than that.







  • I would not try to buy a product with a built-in battery for life. If you want a battery-powered speaker and want to keep it for a long time, I’d go for something that has standardized, removable batteries.

    EDIT: It looks like a lot of the products out there (a) are Bluetooth, which I don’t know if you want or not (but I wouldn’t consider that something that will be a buy-it-for-life feature either, since Bluetooth has steadily seen protocol change over time and I doubt that twenty years down the road, the state-of-the-art in Bluetooth will be what it is today) and (b) have built-in lithium batteries. What you might consider doing is getting a radio with a built-in speaker with aux-in, as it’s easy to find those with removable batteries and without Bluetooth.





  • 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.









  • Intel can use up their excess capacities, making currently high-priced DRAM for profit, gain goodwill for rescuing the PC market, which in turn will sell more Intel CPUs as well. Sounds like a win to me. What do you think?

    searches

    It sounds like they are, in fact, looking into making DRAM. Just that they’re interested in making better DRAM for AI applications.

    https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/dram/intel-and-softbank-collaborate-on-power-efficient-hbm-substitute-for-ai-data-centers-says-report

    American chip giant Intel has partnered with Japanese tech and investment powerhouse SoftBank to build a stacked DRAM substitute for HBM. According to Nikkei Asia, the two industry behemoths set up Saimemory to build a prototype based on Intel technology and patents from Japanese academia, including the University of Tokyo. The company is targeting a completed prototype and mass production viability assessment by 2027, with an end goal of commercialization before the end of the decade.

    Most AI processors use HBM or high-bandwidth memory chips, which are perfect for temporarily storing the massive amount of data that AI GPUs process. However, these ICs are complex to manufacture and are relatively expensive. Aside from that, they get hot pretty quickly and require relatively more power. The partnership aims to solve this by stacking DRAM chips and then figuring out a way to wire them more efficiently. By doing so, the stacked DRAM chip’s power consumption is halved versus a similar HBM chip.

    If successful, SoftBank says that it wants to have priority for the supply of these chips. At the moment, only three companies produce the latest HBM chips: Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron. The insatiable demand for AI chips means that HBM supply can be hard to get by, so Saimemory aims to corner the market with its substitute, at least for Japanese data centers. This will also be the first time that Japan aims to become a major memory chip supplier in over 20 years.

    I suppose if they can make better AI-oriented DRAM than the Big Three and make enough of it to satisfy AI demand at some point, that might make the Big Three redirect some of their output back to DIMMs.