• Jaysyn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    They are going to do a lot more damage then Enron when their bubble pops.

    EDIT: LOL, found the techbro.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      What if it’s not a bubble?

      So I tried using some AI chatbots to find a movie recently, it made up a few, none being the answer.

      (The question was about a historical movie, made in perhaps 1970s by the feeling, set someplace in southern France somewhere around 1650s, has a few beautiful views of nature and castles ; one scene where a guard captain enters a room, asks a question, as a power gesture drinks a glass of wine on the table and a minute later falls ; another scene where for whatever reason a rapier fight happens in something like a tavern, two women in pastel dresses are descending by an open ladder from the second floor, seeing the brawl take our pocket pistols, one of them is stabbed with a rapier ; another scene where a guy is getting questioned with his feet over the fire ; another when another guy is climbing a tower clinging at brick mortars outside and hears guards’ boots on the ladder very loudly ; when I was a kid and saw that, someone said it’s an adaptation of something by Lope de Vega, but I’m not sure that’s correct ; that’s just in case someone reading this knows such a movie.)

      But some googling sessions they do optimize, without you the user ever having to browse a webpage, and just getting a textual answer. That’s a valid use.

      And some other processes. They don’t have to be useful for all things they are applied to, just some profitable.

      • andallthat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Being a bubble does not mean the service they provide is useless. It means that the service is never generating enough profit to repay for the huge cost of providing it.

        Would you pay 500 dollars a month to have the possibility to do your movie searches? Or alternatively, would you like your LLM of choice to counter that, having read all your emails and browser history, you are probably interested in a totally different movie that just happens to be playing now at a nearby cinema?

        Because these AI companies are currently burning through literally a good chunk of all the cash in the world and they will eventually need to make even more gigantic profits to repay that cash. And the only one that is currently making money from AI seems to be NVIDIA, by selling the hardware that powers the AI giants.

        I’m not saying that it IS all a bubble, by the way, as I can’t read the future and these gigantic profits might well materialize in the future. I’m just saying that “bubble” and “useless” are different.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nvidia is just selling overpriced premium shovels in a gold rush. They don’t care if there’s gold there or not.

    Enron went bust by hiding debts. Making a loss is one thing, but lying about it to shareholders (and getting found out) is a one way trip out of the stock exchange.

  • Sirdubdee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Big tech is just trading the same $100b between each other to generate infinite shareholder value.

    • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Man that reminds me of an old comic where two guys give each other the same $50,000 back and forth to eat horse shit and in the end their like, “we just created two jobs and grew GDP by $100,000!” Lol

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      hot potatoes, but they do need someone to hold on to that 100bn debt, usually other industries outside the tech sector. thats why they peddle it so hard to trump, to be used with palintir, and then other services.

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Nvidia definitely isn’t Enron. It’s all of Nvidia’s customers that are mini-Enrons.

    Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed.

    That’s not Nvidia. Nvidia is selling actual product as fast as they can make it at whatever price they want to charge.

    Nvidia’s customers, on the other hand, are the ones who have to justify buying billions of dollars of product from Nvidia and explaining how they plan to make a profit from that.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed

      • Sell chips to X

      • Receive stock in X

      • Value of stocks = discounted sum of future (fake) income

      • Booked as an asset on the balance sheet

      This is exactly like Enron but the underlying commodity isn’t energy, it’s compute.

      • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nvidia sells plenty of GPUs for actual money, they are good for it.

        No, the real issue is the depreciation for the people owning GPUs. Your GPU will be usable for 4-6 years, and 2-4 of those years will be spent as ”the cheap old GPU. After that time, you need new GPUs. (And as the models are larger by then, you need moahr GPU)

        How the actual fuck do these people expect to get any ROI on that scale with those timeframes? With training, maybe the trained model can be an asset (lol), but for inference there are basically no residual benefits.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s Michael Burrys thesis. Higher depreciation for GPU owners is a positive for Nvidia because they end up buying more GPUs.

          I’m highlighting the the future revenue of those customers that Nvidia has booked in terms of equity. That is equivalent to Enron. Here the SPVs are named companies like OpenAI and other model developers.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          enron sold plenty of gas and real things too: it’s the double handling that’s the problem; not the nature of the goods or services

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The relative size of the double handling is the potential problem. I think Nvidia is just trying to extend the gold rush for a bit longer.

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Do this:

            • Calculate the total power cost of running it at 100% load since 2014
            • Calculate Flops/Watt and compare with modern hardware
            • Calculate MTTF when running at 100% load. Remember that commercial support agreements are 4-5 years for a GPU, and if it dies after that, it stays dead.
            • In AI, consider the full failure domain (1 broken GPU = 7+ GPUs out of commission) for the above calculation.

            You’ll probably end up with 4-6 years as the usable lifetime of your billion dollar investment. This entire industry is insane. (GTX 1080 here. Was considering an upgrade until the RAM prices hit.)

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      NVIDIA is producing and delivering GPUs. However this does NOT translate into income, and that’s what’s making it shady. These companies are paying in shares that will be worth nothing when it pops.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Enron was cooking the books hiding huge deficits, and spending the money from the workers pension funds, so no Nvidia isn’t Enron, but that doesn’t mean it’s all good.
    Enron was the absolute worst, only matched by the Bernie Madoff pyramid scheme and the Bankman Fried crypto fraud.

    Saying you are better than that is a very bad look.

  • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    If a company says they are not like Enron, it means they 1000% are exactly like Enron

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah. Enron’s scheme was trading money back and forth with itself to inflate its value until it all came crashing down, tanking Enron.

      Nvidia is at the center of a scheme involving the entire economy trading money back and forth between a few companies to inflate value, so when the scheme tanks it’ll crush everybody.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    You can do everything right and still have the curse of investor overconfidence placed on you.

    Huang has been complaining for some time that doing well doesn’t result in stock gains, but the actual problem is the stock price is way too high so doing well does nothing for investor expectations.

    This is when you sell shares because they no longer have any upside potential.

    It sucks for companies though, but the fact is nvidia is overvalued at a 4.5T market cap.

    • Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      In some ways the victim of their own success, that’s just the way this system is built, for better or worse (mostly worse). The incentives drive the behaviour, but the architecture is hostile in nature, so it’s hard to have different outcomes at a certain level. Infinite growth is literal cancer.

    • U7826391786239@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      he’s got nothing to worry about. when they crash down to $1, trump will call it a “matter of national security” or some shit, and then bail them out, courtesy of your tax dollars and my tax dollars. because they actually want the AIs for their police state surveillance

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The company doesn’t care if the stock price hits $1. If the company is paying it’s bills, it just continues. It’s the people who hold shares that care. The company doesn’t hold shares in itself.

        Enron collapsed because the company financials collapsed, not because the stock price collapsed. That happened after all the bad accounting practises and hidden debt came to light. Now, in that case the shareholders succeeded in suing for their losses, but they only had a case because of the mismanagement.

        • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The company absolutely does own shares of itself and it’s ability to secure credit and just engage in business in general depends of the value of that holding.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Remember that when the news article talks about the economy, it’s mostly talking about rich people’s yachts.

    Obviously there are some people nearing retirement age who need their pension plans not to lose value rapidly, they do exist. But the vast majority of the money that is being discussed here, that a bubble might make or break, is millionaires and billionaires savings accounts… So when this bubble bursts and when these companies go bankrupt, to hell with the ultra rich. If we want to help out people who are struggling to live out their retirement because of the stock market collapse that will occur, let’s do that, and let’s just tell the billionaires to go to hell.

  • C1pher@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just crash and burn already please, so other companies can rebuild and take your place. Please, for the love of god.

    • CandleTiger@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you want to get advantage from a speculative fund making a bet on a popped bubble, then you need to be already invested now, before the bubble bursts. (And also, you/your fund need to be right that it’s really about to pop now, and not later)

      Once the race is over it’s too late to bet on the ponies.

  • tja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you have to protest the insinuation as the CEO of a company in a public forum…Then I think the accusation has already found enough root to at least contain more than a grain of truth. The phrase “He doth protest too much” comes to mind.