Because there isn't an unlimited amount of productive work to be done. Sure, a bowling ball factory in a world that demands unlimited bowling balls should take the productivity multiplier AND retain the employees, because they ought to make all the bowling balls they possibly can.
But CashApp jira tickets are not a bowling ball factory in a world with unlimited bowling ball demand. At a certain point, you're just paying people to sit around, or even worse, pretend they're busy.
He explains the rationale, smaller teams work faster.
we're already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company. and that's accelerating rapidly.
Have you worked at a big company? It makes sense to me that a small group would be much more productive than a large group, even without AI. Throw in some AI help, and it could be much better.
I would say the vast majority of people in this thread don't believe that this is related to AI at all, other than as a pretext. It's kind of incredible.
Connectix was a big deal in its day. RAM Doubler was considered essential software.
They also marketed the first webcam, and made emulators mainstream. Their PlayStation emulator is the basis for the case law that says emulators are fair use, decided as a result of a suit from Sony.
Google doesn't and won't have enough TPUs regardless. Nvidia owns the supply chain (confirmed with them trying to or has taken over Apple as TSMC's biggest customer).
That's because Google is once removed from TSMC, unlike Nvidia and Apple
Google and Broadcom are in co-design partnership (and now also MediaTek). Google defines the architecture. Broadcom provides the essential infrastructure (IP blocks) that makes the chip work on silicon and works tight with TSMC to make it happen in new nodes. Spending billions to help Broadcom get into par with Nvidia is not what they want.
Apple, for example, designs nearly the entire SoC in-house (CPU, GPU, NPU) and work with TSMC hand in hand. They buy only specific chips and block designs like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and RF.
> Apple, for example, designs nearly the entire SoC in-house
I already mentioned Apple lost their top spot. They're also are paying a 100% price hike for Samsung RAM.
> Spending billions to help Broadcom get into par with Nvidia is not what they want
Point being if Apple doesn't have enough whether Google is once removed or not still won't have anywhere near enough to compete. This is about supply. Nvidia reserved capacity. You can't get it.
Even if Nvidia GPUs were worse - they have 10-100x more of them. What would you as a large customer want? Tesla for example has many buildings racking GPUs and more in the works. Specialized hardware like what OpenAI is doing with the new "spark" will just be "experimental" and side projects because better or not there won't be enough for real demand.
Apple gets enough. Their need for chips is not growing as high as Nvidia's.
I think you are trying to say that Nvidia has lock-in due its massive reservations and it starves others out. That's partially true real bottleneck currently is CoWoS/CoWoS-L packaging, not the chips. Nvidia is reaping the benefits of being pioneer who helped to make it possible. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think Nvidia has over 60% capacity reservation of TSMC CoWoS.
That kind of lock in is only temporary. Anyone can reserve ahead of time and take the risk of failing to get competitive node and suffer the losses.
ps. Nvidia is paying 50% to 100% premiums over standard prices just to secure "urgent" additional capacity beyond their original reservations. If others want that capacity they can bid.
Sure it doesn't prefer THE Borg?
reply