Gary Marcus

Rank 11 of 47
|
Score 83
9/4/2024, 2:12:48 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Spencer
@ReadFuturist
·
514d
@GaryMarcus I'm not sure if you are business type Gary, but capex in AI is related to Cloud and Ads growth as we have seen already with Meta and Microsoft. Bigger AI supercomputers might have ROI on a 10 year horizon.

Some of your arguments are not sound. Hyperscalers cannot be left behind
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
514d
No. NVidia is *not* “junk tech”; the tech is terrific.

Their problem is that rising demand is primarily driven by customers that haven’t figured out (and may never figure out) how to make significant profits off the chips.

That’s not sustainable.
wharrgarbl
@Wharrgarbl42
·
514d
@GaryMarcus Nvidia is getting shoved out of the Cerebras waiting room.

Nvidia's days are numbered. Junk tech, artificial scarcity, low performance, overpriced.

They are the next Intel.

The statement by @ReadFuturist engages in a public discourse about the value and sustainability of NVidia's technology and its market position. The tone is somewhat dismissive and sarcastic, particularly in the initial part of the statement, but it transitions to a more serious critique about the longevity and value of technology investments.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the sarcastic tone could be seen as dismissive, which might not promote a respectful dialogue. Minor violation. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. It respects the privacy and dignity of others. Adheres to the principle. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on critiquing the argument presented. Neutral.
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by questioning the value of old technology, but the initial sarcastic remark could be seen as a minor personal attack. Minor violation. [-1]