[HN Gopher] Meta's open AI hardware vision
___________________________________________________________________
Meta's open AI hardware vision
Author : GavCo
Score : 160 points
Date : 2024-10-15 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (engineering.fb.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (engineering.fb.com)
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Free and open LLMs will be compelling to many of users that
| cannot or do not want to use online services.
|
| It's good that a large company like Meta seems to be pushing it
| forward with openllama 3.2.
|
| Open, quality LLMs must lead to some tense discussions at OpenAI
| and Anthropic about whether they should be open or closed.
|
| OpenAI Whisper is open source and it's extremely good although it
| appeared to me the online version is much faster.
| blihp wrote:
| Likely not tense as it seems pretty clear where everyone stands
| on this. OpenAI and Anthropic are likely having conversations
| along the lines of 'move faster and build the moat!' while Meta
| is having a conversation along the lines of 'move faster and
| destroy the moat!'
|
| It's not that Meta has anything against moats, it's just that
| they've seen how it works when they try to build their moat on
| top of someone else's (i.e. Apple and Google re: mobile) and it
| didn't work out too well.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| So they're trying to be what Android is to the iPhone?
| LorenDB wrote:
| Precisely, and that extends to their XR ambitions as well:
| https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/meta-horizon-os-open-
| hardwar...
| threeseed wrote:
| Also the EU is far more aggressive and opinionated about what
| they want to see in the market than during the smartphone
| era. And this is spreading across the world.
|
| So being committed to an open, standards-based strategy is an
| easy way for them to avoid most of the risks.
| dudus wrote:
| Very impressive. Not sure if worth $40 Billion. But very
| impressive nonetheless.
| flkenosad wrote:
| That made me laugh. $40 billion is absurd.
| airstrike wrote:
| Beats buying Twitter, that's for sure.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Twitter was always very overvalued because it's real value
| case can't be expressed in dollar terms.
| jameslk wrote:
| That title is most definitely a swipe at OpenAI. It seems there's
| a theme of two types of platform companies: the closed one that
| has the "premium" platform, and the open one that gets market
| share by commodifying the platform.
|
| macOS vs Windows
|
| iOS vs Android
|
| OpenAI vs Meta AI?
|
| Edit: Another observation is Meta seems to open things
| defensively. Facebook had a rich developer platform until
| Facebook stopped needing to grab market share. Meta's VR platform
| was closed until Apple challenged them with Vision Pro. Then Meta
| announced open sourcing Horizon OS. I wonder if Meta will truly
| keep things open if they win, or if it's more like a case of EEE?
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I've used OpenAI's tech, and I've used their competitors tech,
| but I've never used any of Facebooks AI tech yet. Is there
| something I'm missing out on?
| edm0nd wrote:
| Meta = LLaMA
|
| I think the bet is that many other things will use their
| llama that you then use. Perhaps without you even knowing
| this.
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Running a (405B) flagship model locally on a Mac Studio?
| Otherwise, no. Most of these products are fairly similar.
| herval wrote:
| Ever heard of pytorch?
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Never used it myself, but that's a good call out and
| precisely why I asked.
| jsheard wrote:
| Windows and Android took the commodity approach but they always
| had a business model, while Meta AI is currently running on
| Underpants Gnomes economics.
|
| 1. Spend billions on a product, then give it away for free.
|
| 2. ???
|
| 3. Profit!
|
| _> Then Meta announced open sourcing Horizon OS._
|
| Open sourcing isn't really the right term, they're allowing
| third party hardware vendors to use it but it's still
| proprietary. Horizon OS is built on top of Android and they're
| following the Android playbook where the core is technically
| open source but the version nearly everyone actually uses has a
| bunch of proprietary Google (or Meta) software layered on top,
| and Google (or Meta) dictates the terms of using that software,
| which lets them ensure that revenue always flows back to Google
| (or Meta) regardless of who made the hardware.
| herval wrote:
| They use the models they opensource in their own products,
| no? I don't think Meta is looking to profit selling LLMs...
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| > "I don't think Meta is looking to profit selling LLMs..."
|
| Said no one ever.
| dartos wrote:
| OP said it... I also don't think meta is looking to sell
| LLMs.
|
| Probably LLM backed products. Likely marketing tools if
| anything.
|
| But not the same way OAI sells LLMs
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Maybe not "sell" but if you look at my other comment on
| this post you'll see their valuation has increased 162
| billion since they released their first open source
| model. They definitely are looking to profit, they just
| take a different approach to monetization. Same thing in
| my book.
| richardw wrote:
| Excellent move to juice the stock price but it's not
| profit. I think it's more a hope for profit one day, a
| ticket to the game.
| herval wrote:
| So you're saying Meta stock grew this year because they
| released an open source LLM?
| falcor84 wrote:
| Not exactly "sell", but I do recall Zuckerberg saying that
| they have a revenue sharing agreement with platforms like
| AWS Bedrock that offer Llama inference.
| bentice wrote:
| Don't they charge cloud vendors who sell LLAMA models on
| their platform? My understanding is that is part of the
| licensing agreement. Its more like:
|
| 1. Spend billions on a product.
|
| 2. Make it free to work with and charge to commercialize it.
|
| 3. Profit
| sangnoir wrote:
| Meta and Google are the companies most able to monetize AI-
| generated or AI-enhanced[1] content on their respective
| properties.
|
| 1. Meta showed off automatic audio translation that preserves
| speaker's voices. Content creators can now expand their
| following beyond their spoken languages, generating more ad
| impressions.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| OCP has been about for _years_. Almost since facebook was a
| thing.
|
| Facebook the site had a rich platform until they had to secure
| it against people stealing your data, and your mate's data and
| pretending that they had a really rich dataset on most of the
| western world's adult population (ie Cambridge analytica )
|
| Horizon OS is a fucking mess and isn't anything really to do
| with Apple, its more to do with the making sure samsung don't
| use android for what ever shit they produce.
|
| OpenAI aren't going to compete with Meta, as they aren't in the
| same game. OpenAI has to make money from its offerings, Meta's
| AI shit is a byproduct of other things (see massive spending on
| "reality labs")
| wubrr wrote:
| > That title is most definitely a swipe at OpenAI.
|
| Eh, 'OpenAI' is a swipe at OpenAI.
| osrec wrote:
| What is EEE?
| ArnoVW wrote:
| Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
|
| Famously the Microsoft strategy against Java.
| richardw wrote:
| I assume it's embrace, extend, extinguish:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu.
| ..
| hintymad wrote:
| OpenAI does not have its own platform yet but depend on Azure?
| If so, they probably should build their platform to squeeze out
| as much cost as possible.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| They have their own platform - a platform to build AI tools
| on top of their API. The hardware layer below is abstracted
| away.
| ipaddr wrote:
| macOS isn't a premium product over Windows nor is iOS over
| Android. Windows isn't really an open platform either. OpenAI
| is more open as it doesn't require logging in.
|
| A simple narrative doesn't exist connecting these three product
| battles. The only thing that comes to mind is macOS, iOS and
| OpenAI are designed for the novice. You could probably add
| Coinbase vs Binance or Uber vs Lyft or Facebook vs Google Plus
| and be able to keep that narrative.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Meta's VR wasn't really a lot more closed to be honest. They've
| just dropped the deep review process and anyone can now publish
| to the main store what was previously 'app lab'. They've been
| heading this way for a long time, a couple years ago they
| didn't even have app lab.
|
| And the OS being open isn't really that relevant unless you're
| a system integrator. I really doubt whether this is in response
| to Apple. They seem to operate in entirely different markets. I
| love VR but I can never buy a vision pro. It's twice what I've
| ever spent on my most expensive car.
| Quekid5 wrote:
| "Open" is a meme at this point, isn't it?
| righthand wrote:
| Open as in you get to open the box.
|
| Or maybe Open as in "open for business".
| epistasis wrote:
| Having used and learned from the architectures that Facebook
| has published via OCP over the past decade, this is not a
| "meme" but actual real information and designs that Facebook
| uses to commoditize their supply chain and that others can use
| too.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Some designs such as OCP NIC have become industry standard.
| Quekid5 wrote:
| ... but that's been a thing since ever using the "Open"
| moniker? I just feel "Open" is a mental shortcut that's being
| misused a bit.
|
| See, e.g. [0] for an example of Facebook (now: Meta) for
| admirable dissemination of knowledge.
|
| [0] https://engineering.fb.com/2015/06/26/security/fighting-
| spam...
| epistasis wrote:
| I've not noticed a change in the amount of usage of "open"
| or any mental shortcuts about it since it was introduced
| via the term "open source" in the 1990s. If anything,
| there's less discussion and abuse of the term now. The only
| memery that I see is from OpenAI, which had aspirations to
| openness in the past but which today is a sham.
|
| Facebooks open efforts here are completely great, IMHO, and
| have benefited me personally and professionally.
| seydor wrote:
| They ve already gone after openAi, are they after Nvidia now?
| throwup238 wrote:
| No, this is a rack built on NVIDIA's platform, so this is just
| more $$$ for them.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yeah this is... nothing. At least nothing anyone worth less
| than a few billion could ever care about.
|
| Would be far more interesting to see MTIA in an edge compute
| PCIe form.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| There's also an AMD rack and meta is big enough that they
| won't get blacklisted for it.
| mhandley wrote:
| The article talks about NVidia racks, but also about their
| DSF [0], which is Ethernet-based (as opposed to Infiniband)
| built on switches using Cisco and Broadcom chipsets and
| custom ASIC xPU accelerators such as their own MTIA [1] which
| is built for them by Broadcom. So they are talking more than
| one approach simultaneously.
|
| [0] https://engineering.fb.com/2024/10/15/data-
| infrastructure/op...
|
| [1] https://ai.meta.com/blog/next-generation-meta-training-
| infer...
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Sort of, while yes this uses Nvidia, one of Nvidia's moats or
| big advantages is its rack scale integration. AMD and other
| providers just can't scale up easily, they are behind in terms
| of connecting tons of GPUs together effectively. So doing this
| part themselves instead of buying Nvidia's much-hyped
| (deservedly) NVL72 solution, which is a nonpareil rack system
| with 72 GPUs in it, and then opensourcing it, opens the door to
| possibly integrating AMD GPUs in the future and this hurts
| Nvidia's moat.
| Gee101 wrote:
| Zuckerberg and Facebook gets a lot of hate but at least they
| invest a lot into engineering and open source.
| threeseed wrote:
| Also the fact that he is delivering on Fediverse integration
| with Threads.
|
| I don't think most people expected that to happen so quickly or
| frankly at all.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Neither did the company.
|
| Most new products fail at meta, because they become a
| "priority", throw thousands of engineers at the problem and
| get bogged down in managing a massive oversubscription of
| engineers to useful work ratio.
|
| Threads happened because a few people managed to convince
| each other to take a risk and build a instagram/mastodon
| chimera. They managed to show enough progress to continue
| without getting fucked in the performance review, but not
| enough for an exec to get excited about building an empire
| around it.
| oersted wrote:
| VR also gets a lot of hate, and they definitely dropped the
| ball on user-facing software, but Meta is doing very
| substantial, deep and valuable long-term R&D on VR hardware.
| They are also doing a lot on systems software, with their OS
| and all the low-key AI that enables excellent real-time
| tracking, rendering and AR.
|
| It might not all be open-source, and they are doing it with
| an expectation of long-term profit, but they are earnestly
| pushing the horizons (pun intended) of the field and taking-
| on lots of risk for everyone else.
|
| It's undeniable now that they are a serious and innovative
| engineering organization, while Google is rapidly loosing
| that reputation.
| amelius wrote:
| I personally think our academia should be training and curating
| these kinds of models and the data they are based on, but this
| is an acceptable second best.
| 123yawaworht456 wrote:
| there's already https://www.goody2.ai/chat
| asdff wrote:
| IMO there are much better ways to spend 300 million in
| research beyond firing up a cluster for 60 days to train on
| internet content.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Aggressively commoditizing the complement has been a good
| strategy for them.
| lossolo wrote:
| > good strategy for them.
|
| For everyone, besides OpenAI etc.
| diggan wrote:
| > and open source
|
| I'm kind of split about this. Yes, Facebook done a lot of great
| Open Source in the past, and I'm sure they'll do more great
| Open Source in the future.
|
| But it's really hard to see them in a positive light when they
| keep misleading people about Llama, and publish blog posts that
| say how important Open Source is etc etc, then refuse to
| actually release Llama as Open Source, refuse to elaborate on
| why they see it as Open Source while no one else does it and
| refuse to take a step back and understand how the FOSS
| community feels when they actively mislead people like this.
| the_clarence wrote:
| The hate is mostly from people who don't use their products.
| Plenty of people are happy users
| m_ke wrote:
| I wonder when Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI will partner on an open
| chip design to compete with NVIDIA.
|
| They're all blowing billions of dollars on NVIDIA hardware with
| like 70% margin and with triton backing PyTorch it shouldn't be
| that hard to move off of CUDA stack.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Each of them is designing their own hardware. The goal isn't
| really to compete with nvidia though, whose market is general
| purpose GPU compute. Instead they're customizing hardware for
| inference to drive down product cost.
| infecto wrote:
| What is a large mount of money to you, is not that significant
| to some of these companies. I suspect for the vast majority of
| these companies, it still represents a small expense. General
| sentiment is that there is probably overspending in the area
| but its better to spend it and not risk being left behind.
| m_ke wrote:
| Half of NVIDIA's 2nd quarter revenue (30 billion) came from 4
| customers, with Microsoft and Meta already having spent 40-60
| billion each on GPU data centers (of which most goes to
| NVIDIA). "Open"AI just raised a few billion and is supposedly
| planning on building their own training clusters soon.
|
| For a small fraction of that they could poach a ton of people
| from NVIDIA and publish a new open chip spec that anyone
| could manufacture.
|
| https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/09/12/46-nvidias-30-bill.
| ..
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I can't see Meta and MSFT getting into the chip design
| business. Maybe OpenAI.
|
| Apple's already not using nVidia chips to train its models.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I think Microsoft have dabbled in the space already.
| mhandley wrote:
| Meta is already in the chip design business, albeit in
| collaboration with Broadcom who build it for them:
| https://ai.meta.com/blog/next-generation-meta-training-
| infer...
| mhh__ wrote:
| It would require a fairly big bet on AI models not changing
| structure all that much, I guess
|
| I think if the tooling and supply chain falls into place it
| would surprise me if meta and friends _didn 't_ make their own
| chips, assuming it was a good fit of course.
|
| Note: AMD's missed opportunity here is so bad people jump "make
| their own chip" rather than "buy AMD". Although watch that
| space.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| Aren't they basically safe as long as future AI models are
| still basically multiplying tensors of floats?
| wmf wrote:
| https://ai.meta.com/blog/next-generation-meta-training-infer...
|
| https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-maia-for-the-er...
|
| They're not teaming up and neither design is open, but they
| definitely have their own designs.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| > "This effort pushed our infrastructure to operate across more
| than 16,000 NVIDIA H100 GPUs, making Llama 3.1 405B the first
| model in the Llama series to be trained at such a massive scale."
|
| So at 20k a pop (assuming meta has a decent wholesale price from
| Nividia) they spent $320 MILLION on the 405B model (not including
| probably 5-10 million in electricity for the training process,
| water, staff, infra).
|
| Do we think that brings more than 400+ million in value to Meta?
| I think so. I don't want to do the math, so I'll ask Perplexity
| to look it up:
|
| > "How much has Meta's valuation increased since they released
| their first open source model"
|
| Answer (edited):
|
| > Closing price on February 23, 2023: $509.50 > Closing price on
| October 11, 2024: $573.68 > The increase in stock price is $64.18
| per share. > Total increase = Price increase per share x Number
| of outstanding shares > Total increase = $64.18 x 2,534,000,000 =
| $162,632,100,000 > Meta's stock valuation has increased by
| approximately $162.63 billion since the release of their first
| open source model on February 24, 2023.
|
| They seem to be making the right choices!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Do we think that brings more than 400+ million in value to
| Meta?_
|
| Tough to tell, given nobody is turning a net profit on LLMs
| yet.
|
| Companies have a tendency to develop neuroses, though, just
| like people. Apple's near miss with bankruptcy fuelled cash
| hoarding. For Facebook, their disastrous IPO and near miss of
| mobile seems to have made them hyper aware of the Innovator's
| Dilemma. $400mm spent on a defensive move is certainly wider
| than tens of billions on the metaverse.
| sdesol wrote:
| > Tough to tell, given nobody is turning a net profit on LLMs
| yet.
|
| I suspect in the case of Meta and other big players, profit
| isn't necessary required to bring substantial value. Imagine
| their model being able to help them moderate more fairly and
| accurately. This alone could prevent potential legal actions
| from individuals, companies, and governments.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _profit isn 't necessary required to bring substantial
| value_
|
| They're private companies. If they can't tie it to profit,
| it's not adding value.
|
| > _being able to help them moderate more fairly and
| accurately_
|
| This reduces legal costs and increases strategic
| flexibility. Sort of like HR or legal departments: cost
| centres add value by controlling costs, a critical
| component of profitability.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Providing toilets to employees does not tie to profit.
| Toilets in all offices are now closed. We are saving over
| $10k per day.
| geodel wrote:
| Some people are gonna shit in their pants hearing this
| new policy.
| hx8 wrote:
| > They're private companies. If they can't tie it to
| profit, it's not adding value.
|
| Not true, even strictly from an accounting perspective.
| If you spend $400M and build an asset that is worth
| >$400M, then you have increased the value of the company
| without modifying profit. For example, if a company were
| to buy land, and build a building, that building has a
| value regardless of if it is associated with any revenue.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > * If you spend $400M and build an asset that is worth
| >$400M, then you have increased the value of the company
| without modifying profit. For example, if a company were
| to buy land, and build a building, that building has a
| value regardless of if it is associated with any revenue*
|
| Why does it have value? It's because it can be rented,
| occupied for productive use or sold to someone who can do
| either of those. Revenue-free assets are essentially
| money. (Companies aren't in the business of non-revenue
| non-monetary assets--that's the domain of society at
| large.)
| com2kid wrote:
| > They're private companies. If they can't tie it to
| profit, it's not adding value.
|
| Smart companies understand other types of value exist.
|
| If a democratic population hates you, it is harder to
| convince politicians to do your bidding. (Not impossible,
| just harder!)
|
| If potential employees don't think kindly of you, it is
| harder to recruit.
|
| Llama is a constant source of good PR for Meta in the
| developer community. Compared to just a couple of years
| ago when they were mostly laughed at by devs for
| metaverse stuff. Now it is "holy cow Zuck is standing up
| to Microsoft and Amazon and democratizing AI!"
|
| With Llama, Meta has got great PR, and also developed
| cutting edge tech.
|
| They also get to benefit from thousands of developers
| trying to make Meta's models run more efficiently.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > Tough to tell, given nobody is turning a net profit on LLMs
| yet
|
| Perhaps, but Meta is definitely getting _some_ money back
| from ad impressions supported by AI-generated content.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Correct. We know these models are producing fucktonnes of
| revenue. At least some of them can be run at a gross
| profit, _i.e._ where marginal power costs and capital costs
| are less than marginal revenues. (Put another way: if
| OpenAI were an absolute monopoly and stopped training new
| models, could it turn a profit?)
|
| What's unclear is if this is a short-term revenue benefit
| from people fucking around with the newest, shiniest model,
| or recurring revenue that is only appearing unprofitable
| because the frontier is advancing so quickly.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| From the little we know about OpenAIs inference infra, I
| feel like I can confidently say that if training stopped
| today, and they got cut off Azure subsidies, their $20.00
| subscription model would probably not cover the cost of
| Inference.
|
| I know nothing about the enterprise side of OpenAI but
| I'm sure they're profitable there. I doubt the
| subscription cost of a single _power user_ of ChatGPT
| Plus covers the water they consume as a single user (This
| is probably an exaggeration, but I think I 'm in the
| ballpark).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| It may be that extra-large LLMs don't make sense for
| ChatGPT. They're for enterprise use, like supercomputers.
| The reason I say "at least some" is I've found use in
| running a local instance of Llama, which seems to imply
| there is _some_ niche of (legal) activities AI can
| support sustainably. (Versus, _e.g._ crypto.)
| trsohmers wrote:
| Do you think that the 16k GPUs get used once and then are
| thrown away? Llama 405B was trained over 56 days on the 16k
| GPUs; if I round that up to 60 days and assume the current
| mainstream hourly rate of $2/H100/hour from the Neoclouds
| (which are obviously making margin), that comes out to a total
| cost of ~$47M. Obviously Meta is training a lot of models using
| their GPU equipment, and would expect it to be in service for
| at least 3 years, and their cost is obviously less than what
| the public pricing on clouds is.
| lossolo wrote:
| And Meta is using a lot of GPUs for offline ML and online ML
| features on Instagram, FB etc. So nothing is "wasted".
| lovethevoid wrote:
| > Meta's stock valuation has increased by approximately $162.63
| billion
|
| All thanks to their investments in VR! Wait guys where are you
| going
| kkielhofner wrote:
| One of the things driving this crazy spend on AI infrastructure
| by big tech is excess capital.
|
| Big tech is getting increasing scrutiny by regulators, etc for
| monopolistic/anticompetitive practices/etc[0]. From S&P:
|
| "Regulatory scrutiny is likely to translate into fewer mega
| deals, however. Adobe Inc. recently abandoned its $20 billion
| acquisition of Figma Inc. in the face of ongoing opposition
| from the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and the EU's
| European Commission. While Microsoft Corp. was able to close
| its $68.7 billion Activision Blizzard buy, it took nearly two
| years to complete the deal amid an intense fight with the
| regulators.
|
| The harsh regulatory environment will continue to have a
| chilling effect on large tech M&A, but strategic buyers are
| likely to focus on smaller tuck-ins that do not tempt
| regulators to intervene."
|
| So instead of growing further by spend on acquiring/rolling out
| new platforms to draw further scrutiny, they're shoveling piles
| of cash towards other capital expenses (with accounting tricks)
| that don't get further attention/scrutiny from regulators.
|
| Meta doesn't use this infrastructure just for LLaMA - they get
| to use these hundreds of millions of dollars of spend to
| extract more value (deeper, not wider) from the users and
| platforms they already have.
|
| Case in point: AI generated ads[1]. There's a not-too-distant
| future where the ads displayed on Facebook are an AI generated
| video of you in a new Toyota (or whatever). In terms of even
| open models Meta is much more than LLaMA. They have done a lot
| with speech (seamless), vision (segment anything), and much
| more.
|
| That model training, inference, etc is running on these Nvidia
| GPUs as well.
|
| There is also a take from Reid Hoffman saying that buying
| 100,000 GPUs or whatever is basically "table stakes" at this
| point[2]. Boards, analysts, the market, etc says "What I know
| for sure is this AI stuff needs Nvidia GPUs. Elon has 100k. How
| many do we have?".
|
| So it's also a Cold War arms race/missile gap scenario. Plus,
| don't discount ego/"male anatomy measuring contest" that goes
| on with these guys. Consider this story where a bunch of centi-
| billionaires got together at Nobu to fight over Nvidia GPU
| shipments[3].
|
| [0] - https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-
| insights...
|
| [1] - https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/8/24265065/meta-ai-
| edited-v...
|
| [2] - https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-investor-
| hoff...
|
| [3] - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-oracles-larry-
| ellis...
| abofh wrote:
| SPY has gone from 404 to 579 in that timeframe - so meta lost
| value and performance due to their choices? Or you're using a
| terrible metric to judge things by.
| hcc wrote:
| The stock price is completely wrong, stock was around $170 back
| in February 2023
| norgie wrote:
| > I don't want to do the math, so I'll ask Perplexity to look
| it up
|
| These numbers are totally wrong, and it takes about 30 seconds
| to look it up. It closed at 589.95 on 2024-10-11 and 172.04 on
| 2023-02-23. The other numbers appear to be wrong too.
| loeg wrote:
| I did a double-take at the quoted $500 price in 2023. The
| real numbers strengthen the case for AI as a pump-the-stock
| investment.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Meta seems to - in my view correctly - understand that the risk
| to Facebook & other Meta properties is someone else walking
| away with great success, capturing the market for generative AI
| & being left out.
|
| They don't need to make money, increase their value. They need
| to ward off existential risk. The best way to insure they
| aren't locked out from the future is to keep the future open.
| That's the only hope they have to maintain the locks they
| already have on much of the information technology world.
| asdff wrote:
| I wonder how this math works in light of Moore's law? E.g say
| it cost meta $320 million to train this model this year. How
| much does it cost to train that model next year or the year
| after instead? Is it significantly cheaper? Are the returns on
| investment the same? Makes me think there is a business case in
| watching someone spend a pile of money to train model X,
| waiting to see if there's interest in the market in this model
| X, then spend a comparatively smaller pile of money on the same
| model X yourself taking advantage of lower future costs of
| compute and undercut the original company hand over fist.
| burkaman wrote:
| Please don't post auto-generated text without checking it
| yourself. It is almost always wrong, as it is here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-15 23:00 UTC)