• JakenVeina@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It’s profitable for NVidia, because they’re not actually doing anything with it, they’re just selling all the hardware that everyone else needs.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        The only ones guaranteed to make money in a Gold Rush are the ones selling shovels.

        That said, NVIDIA made the mistake of lending money and/or investing directly in the ones doing the “gold mining”, so now they’re heavilly exposed to the side of things that loses a lot of money when it turns out that it was all Fools’ Gold.

        When it comes to manias, some things are always the same.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Jensen seems to be concerned though about the bubble bursting. he probabl wont see immediate effect, but since he switched to mostly AI chip production/design, he will likely lose alot once it hits.

      • altkey (he\him)@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        They kinda do, with their own models for upscaling and stuff integrated into videocard drivers, and it’s not cheap or easy, but it’s peanuts compared to what AI companies spend.

  • axh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Does anyone know what the graphs would look like if we removed the r&d cost?

    I wonder if it would be profitable once they stop spending like crazy on developing new models.

    • Buckshot@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Based on the recently leaked OpenAI figures, still not profitable but it’s much closer. They would have lost $1.7B rather than $20.9B