22 comments

[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 50.2 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
What is their angle with this?

Surely SamA doesn’t actually think that they’ll more than 20x their compute in a few years? I’m sure the researchers there would love to do more research, with more compute, faster, but 20+x growth is not a practical expectation.

Is the goal here to create a mad rush to build data centers, which should decrease their costs with more supply? Do they just want governments to step in and to help somehow? Is it part of marketing/hype? Is this trying to project confidence to investors on future revenue expectations?

The phrase you are looking for is “commodifying the periphery.” As adjacent bottlenecks open up, the bottleneck you control becomes more valuable.
My guess:

Altman figures AI will be a big deal and constrained by avaiable compute.

If he locks in all the available compute and related finance before the competition then he's locked in as the #1 AI company.

I'm not sure 20x or 5x or 40x matters, nor revenue expectations, so much as being ahead of the competition.

> What is their angle with this?

My pet theory: Sam makes more money when OpenAI spends than when OpenAI earns.

I believe it is because of RL you are no longer limited by training data as you generate it during learning on the fly so benchmark driven learning could scale with compute

they also seem to assume that everyone will use AI from them in the future, especially with new "pulse" combined with ads. scaling this will need much more compute.

is this reasonable? I'm not convinced, but this is how I believe it's their reasoning

Pascal’s wager applied to tech cycles. The fervent adherence to the hype is akin to religious zealots in many ways
I think they could probably 'use' 10X. There are rumours that one of the reasons they're not shipping the new Jonny Ive device is that they haven't got the compute for it. If you need 10X probably better to ask for 20x and have a glut than ask for 10x and have a shortage.
Too big to fail is the goal. If the world is powered by openai but it aint making a profit in 2028 they can just put their "were a utility like water" facemask on and get bailed out.
The AI-powered tiktok competitor is not going to be cheap on compute
I mean yeah we all saw the video of him stealing gpus and getting arrested
40% of global DRAM output:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/dram/openais-star...

All for creating worthless TikTok videos with Sora 2, while we don't get graphics cards and DRAM and our electricity prices rise.

Trump will get another "win" for "his" Stargate project. The meeting with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung was NOT arranged by Altman, he is the messenger boy:

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/samsung-sk-hy...

It's even affecting raspberry Pis! Criminal.
Is it just me, or does this extreme demand for compute imply they've realised the core tech is mostly stagnant, and needs compute to possibly scale towards anything AGI-like? (however unlikely that is).
They're substantially tied down by demand/usage right now.

How much more compute would they need to allow all of their paying users unlimited access to their best model? And to enable that setup in such a way that it's actually very fast.

The answer: they need resources far beyond what they have now. That's just to solve an existing problem.

Then throw in Sora 4 and whatever else will exist in a few years, and the need to feed that monster. They couldn't come close to allowing Sora 2 unlimited for all of their paying customers - I'd hate to see what that would require.

Then let the AI begin world building for every user (which is where this is going). It'll be decades before the resource demands actually flatten globally (at least 20-30 years, to get to global population saturation on usage; assuming the global population will begin to rapidly slow and then shrink).

Hint: the solution to Fermi's Paradox is that we go into the box and we never come back out, because it's a lot more interesting for 99.9%+ of humanity than a bunch of repeating rocks in space that take a zillion years to reach. The core purpose of AI will be to world build for us, mentally (relaxation, stimulation, entertainment, social) in we go: the end. The same thing happens to any advanced beings that get to our level, there's little to nothing out there that we can reach of interest (and no, it doesn't matter if the HN crowd disagrees, what matters for this outcome are the masses), we'll definitely figure that out, and there's infinite stimulation/experience in the machine world by contrast.

Or maybe our universe represents the dregs of what once was a vibrant dense universe teeming with life, working hard to maximize entropy. We are like the end stage bacteria relegated to do a deep clean.

Ultimately there appears to be no purpose of life apart from child rearing for the majority. There's subconscious hope that kids might eventually figure it out for the rest of us. The only thing constant is the increase in entropy. At least that is what bound to happen. Should the purpose be accelerating that process or joining the resistance?

Why does OpenAI need so much more compute than everybody else? DeepSeek, Qwen and many others build competitive models that need much less capital.
The compute requirements for these models are getting wild!! We're already seeing costs become a real constraint for smaller companies trying to build AI features.

And if you're building anything serious with AI, you're basically dependent on a handful of cloud providers who control the GPU supply.