> Will we go back to PCs? As in: are we going to get cheap local hackable frontier AIs at some point?
Forget about AI, the entire PC market is getting killed over this.
As an avid gamer I'm unsure if in 5 years I can even buy a gaming PC anymore. Not even because of cost, but it's unclear if anyone will still make the components anymore.
Its interesting because I was at Costco the other day and they weren't even selling PCs unless they were gaming ones. It seems most consumer electronics have switched over to laptops.
Also, this reminds me so much of the download more RAM ads back in the day.
If the AI bubble bursts and prices normalize because demand for AI hardware is reduced, then these companies might pay more attention to other markets like gaming again. But who knows the future anyway.
intel makes gpus :). Maybe games will be finally made again in a way that a PC can run them without needing a 3k GPU in there to get toward half the refreshrate of your monitor.
gaming does not equate to only things like the last of us or cyberpunk which need extreme machines. a lot of visual fidelity can be reached still without having such a monster. Just need to not use certain features which are currently pretty much exclusive to Nvidia...
Regarding graphics capabilities, haven't we reached "good enough" like a decade ago? Does anyone actually want to see ultra realistic gore when attacking an enemy? I'd also submit that photorealistic art style is not the most popular one either nowadays except for a handful of special sims like race car driving.
It's worse than centralization. These AI models have gobbled up all the world knowledge. If for some reason the Internet dies we will have no option but to be dependent on these proprietary, for profit, AI models for any information we need.
You might say that this is impossible but look at current trends. A lot of information today is getting shared in the walled gardens of Internet. You have to login to social media to view posts. The Twitter, Reddit threads that were accessible freely now require you to log in. Similar thing is happening across other networks. People are no longer asking questions on Stackoverflow. All those queries are gonig to AI. If someone chooses to not use AI, their options will be limited in future.
The free sharing of information on Internet is I think coming to an end.
Not only if the internet dies. If the country or countries managing the AI decide they don't like your country and ban you from using their (major) AI providers, in a world where most knowledge and work tanks will require access, you're screwed.
Not even talking dictatorship scenarios here. The USA might simply decide it doesn't like your country. Or maybe heavily cripple the models you can use, or censor them, for whatever reason.
I guess this is an argument for local AI. Probably not feasible for the less technically savvy.
It was the same with cloud and software as a service. We underuse the power of our local machines and pay high cost for modest resources that are bandwidth constrained for most users.
One consequence has been lower power requirement for local machines. This is partly why a 2015 MacBook is still perfectly serviceable for basic use in this day and age.
The AI boom first reversed the trend, to now try to get back to that cycle.
There has been a relatively strong local model community since the days of llama-3. IMO, the number of non-technical people interested in qlora, adapters, parameter fine tuning etc is remarkable.
Yes, we will. Eventually, specialized AI hardware (ASICs) will emerge that will be good for AI, but not much anything else. PCs are general purpose computers that are good at many things, but excel at few. There are quite a few startups working on it already.
Yupppp. My current conspiracy theory, with all of the increasing hardware costs and how easy decompilation projects are, is that there is going to be a major push to eradicate consumer hardware and keep all software in the cloud.
Everybody will have a mini PC for the sole purpose of streaming content, with no storage to keep anything on it.
I would have laughed at the thought a few years ago, but now I am slowly starting to adopt some of the viewpoints of American second amendment hardliners.
It's just unfortunate that producing a half decent computing platform is significantly more difficult than a rifle (and that in the case of said hardliners, the capital is backing them, here it's working against us).
I don't know how much of a conspiracy that is. If the current trend of hardware costs keep rising to the point of pricing people out of having any real compute locally, and chip makers actively de-prioritizing consumer-grade memory, GPUs, etc, companies will (more) heavily push thin clients and streaming for everything.
You know what that era has in common with fossil fuel? It takes a very specialized infrastructure and supply chain that you can limit with lobbying efforts and gatekeeping so that all the money only flows to you and your cronies.
I never left the PC era, but the RAM prices kind of hurt me. I don't
know when I would want to buy a new PC - it seems to be 3x the cost
for barely any real benefits over the status quo.
most games which require that big PC are poorly optimised and often times they arent even fun. these companies focus on visual fidelity and give all their engineers insane machines to build the games on. that has beenn destroying PC gaming way before AI/LLMs came into the picture.
I am using AI now to make a game engine that will run and make 'nice enough' graphics on simpler machines. things like laptops with iGPU and 4gb of ram.
U can still get quite ok graphics, and make very complex and rich gameplay systems using such a machine. It just needs to be the target machine while developing so the right tradeoffs are made.
Yes, but that's a lot of money if you don't already have the hardware, plus you'll still be paying for electricity costs. (No comment on relative capabilities.)
The quote assumes that all of humanity has the same goals as a corporation does: that every individual person desires maximum utilization of components for the sake of company shareholders. Individual people want a computer and just can't buy them because the entire world's memory chip supply, flash storage supply, and increasingly hard drive supply is being swallowed into the maws of corporations who would love nothing more than to sell you tiny bits of that compute through a monthly subscription in perpetuity.
Not everyone subscribes to the "cloud compute is more important than everything else" outlook, but everyone is affected by it nonetheless.
It sort of is, no? To agree with it, you need to share the goal of maximum utilization. Sam Altman seems to take that as a given. But clearly people disagree and not just with RAM. Most kitchens and bathrooms are unused most of the time, but that doesn't mean every home having one is bad.
No, he was not saying that was his goal! That's what everyone seems to misunderstand about this quote.
It's like a highrise developer saying "people think our buildings take up a lot of land, but actually houses are much worse from a land use perspective". Which is objectively true, and yet does not mean the developer thinks the entire world should be turned into houses, or even that they dislike houses!
The quote wasn't weird and made total sense in Altman's POV. It was just egoistic and myopic regarding how people feel about ownership and independence.
It's the proof that people have too much money and should instead give it to Sam Altman that will make a more efficient use of it for our collective wellbeing®.
From a quick skim of the page source (including a dynamically created iframe) it just does a little animation and locally allocates some useless arrays in JavaScript to waste your "uploaded" RAM.
This is silly, and I know Sam Altman said that consumers having RAM is not an efficient usage, but the real villains here are the memory manufacturers that have time and again have been proven to collude on price fixing and whatnot, and are now not scaling up production according to demand.
I don’t think it’s very productive to go on a witch hunt on someone who said something stupid and is being taken out of context (albeit he should have known not to say that).
As far as I can see, there's no evidence they're colluding here. They're just capturing the money that otherwise would have gone to scalpers.
Apparently the last three times this cycle happened, the manufacturers that built out capacity went bankrupt when it popped, and the ones that didn't didn't, so they're actually being wise.
To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.[3]
re "what proof means": Im not your house boy. Go get it
yourself.
proof ... the thing a narcissist demands from you, but will never acknowledge having received.
> are now not scaling up production according to demand.
Would you though? If/when the AI bubble pops and the buildout of data centres either stops or plateaus then they'd suddenly be sitting in a vastly oversaturated market and struggle to make it to the end of the year.
Considering the profits they've made this year, on average they still wouldn't do too bad. SK Hynix employees got almost $500k for example, I can live on that for a few years. Companies are often also legally required to compete with each other.
But they are scaling up the production, they just conveniently did it a bit late. I also fear if/when the bubble pops, they'll quickly reduce the production to ensure prices stay high. I fear Nvidia could do the same. I think it'll be hard for all of them to go back to a world where they're paid way less per component, so instead of accepting that, they can reduce the supply and keep the prices high. Only antitrust regulators could intervene to stop that.
Many people expect prices to go down after the bubble pops, but it may not happen as much as we would want to.
Remember when the dot com bubble burst and after that the Internet became a billion times more important than before? Wikipedia didn't even exist when the dot com bubble collapsed!
All that bubble popping will do is wipe out some investor's money. Everything else will stay and become more and more important.
But of course, it is more profitable to sell one item for $1000 than it is to sell ten items for $100 each. And even if a competitor shows up, you can just price dump with all the extra money you already made until that competitor goes away.
Nothing silly was said really. The remark was specifically about local inference and RAM supply issues and it’s entirely true - if all current AI users tried to switch to local models, it would make the RAM availability situation much worse. I userstand that regular Twitter folk doesn’t grasp that, but this isn’t Twitter.
If a customer ask me to get all my butchery stock for a year, it will make thousands of client unhappy and will make one client happy, so I'll simply refuse.
This is not how business is supposed to be, the world is not supposed to be a B2B chaos.
I know how the business is done "supply demand" bla bla. That does not make it ethical one bit.
It really seems like the majority audience of this site (lukewarm left wing nerds, let's be honest) is trying to square a circle with the unwavering AI support (I mean the ecosystem and the people, not the technology, which is indeed great).
If you look outside the tech bro / stock bro / tech worker circles and into the mass left wing populace everyone HATES ai and ai data centers... the Altmans, the Amodeis, the Huangs, they are not the devil himself levels just yet (cough, Musk, cough), but they are climbing up there.
People's jobs being taken (and especially entry/junior jobs, you know, the ones young people, who voted massively blue, need to get started in life), data centers increasing their electric bills or polluting the air with gigawatt level gas turbines (or both), consumer electronics prices rocketing up (~400% increases YoY in RAM and SSD prices) just so the corporate capitalist class can hoard millions of gpus in warehouses.
I mean, if the democrat politicians getting into power keep their promises and step on AI buildout's neck, it could be lights out for the AI bros.
It was taken out of context for sure but still find this site amusing. Perhaps even prophetic, can we build enough ram and vram for future requirements when theres only a few holding the keys.
Obligatory: "we're curing cancer r-right?" No Nat we're making slop videos with it.
All are responsible - the AI greedy companies and
the suppliers.
If the USA were a real democracy they would do something about
it. After all this even violates capitalism, e. g. free market
leading to reduced prices. But the USA is run by a criminal
gang, pocketing away money - the TechBros and their cronies. They
just make any legislation they want to, with a bit sugar coating
on top to not appear too overly evil or greedy. But they are.
Except that's nonsense, any company that could make more ram absolutely would because the damand is insane. There is no universe or economy where it would be profitable to artificially lower your production to keep prices high when you can just make more ram.
It depends on how much inelastic demand there is. For example:
Let's say there are 10 companies that need 1 GB of RAM each in a life-or-death scenario. They would be willing to pay $100,000,000 per GB to get 1 GB of RAM.
At the same time, there are 90 more companies that need 1 GB of RAM each to make certain quarterly targets. They are willing to pay $10,000 per GB to get 1 GB of RAM.
If you make 9 GB of RAM, you can sell it for $900,000,000. If you make 99 GB of RAM, you can only sell it for $990,000, because the 10 life-or-death companies only need to bid high enough to push out a quarterly-target company.
It's a bit of a contrived example, but it shows you how restricting supply can boost total revenue if there is a segment of the market that has inelastic demand. (this is why medicine pricing has to be regulated - in the medical industry, there are lots of inelastic demand scenarios that can lead to predatory pricing)
Until making more means huge capex building extra factories. Semiconductors is famously a boom and bust industry, building too much in the boom will kill your company.
If you want the personal thanks from Altman without having to actually give up your RAM, you can download some here first https://downloadmoreram.com and then upload that to Altman.
The real solution is even simpler than having everyone upload their RAM to him: Sam can ask Claude (or ChatGPT, if OpenAI takes diversity hires) to build him a DRAM fab, using ultrathinking, making no mistakes.
Sam Altman's argument was that people tend to not run their consumer electronics at 100% 24/7, and so views the time that's not happening as wasted potential for RAM that could be sitting in a data center. I sincerely reject that notion, but from that... utilitarian perspective it's hard to argue that spreading out the world's limited RAM supply across thousands of personal machines would fix any issues
>so consumers are left to feel the guilt of having unused RAM in their computers
Funny WEB Site!
Not me, I have 2 8G DDR4 sticks sitting in a draw that I purchased a few of years ago when they were cheap. I was going to use them to upgrade my W541 to 32G, but I have one of the first models that the max is 16G. So saving them in case I have RAM issues.
If Sam wants them, he can pay me 5000 USD each for them, otherwise I will proudly hang on to them. If I knew his email I would send him a pic of them saying "hahaha" :)
Yep. Not only that but the quote (even if taken out of context) is factual. >99% of people load up their computers with comical amounts of ram when they really, really don't need it. This excess then only fuels the creation of memory inefficient apps. People are in shock when I tell them they could take the whole OS state when running any AAA game, reduce memory usage by an order of magnitude (if optimized correctly) and they couldn't spot a single difference. Most of those >200GB game installs could literally be reduced to a few hundred MB (no, you don't need massive textures + you can generate most on the fly).
I get that I'm falling for low quality bait here, but what about him saying that it's terrible for people to have RAM is "fake propaganda"? The entire exact quote is:
> From a global allocation perspective, actually, it’s quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world’s limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used 5% of the time. You want maximum utilization in the cloud if you’re trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment.
That's a ghoulish point of view that puts real living humans on a lower hung than the poor poor corporations who just want RAM to be so expensive that everyone needs to buy compute from them. Convenient for the corporations!
Centralization is nonironically my biggest problem with AI. It feels like a step back towards mainframe era.
Will we go back to PCs? As in: are we going to get cheap local hackable frontier AIs at some point? I hope so.
> Will we go back to PCs? As in: are we going to get cheap local hackable frontier AIs at some point?
Forget about AI, the entire PC market is getting killed over this.
As an avid gamer I'm unsure if in 5 years I can even buy a gaming PC anymore. Not even because of cost, but it's unclear if anyone will still make the components anymore.
NVIDIA isn't interested, nor is AMD.
I think there is a second order effect of this: it won't be worth making games for PC. At least, large budget games.
1 reply →
It's also killing the console market. Sharp drops in all console sales after "adjusting" to ram prices.
1 reply →
There a lots and lots of great games that will run on computers that would be considered low power today. And I’m not even talking about older games.
Its interesting because I was at Costco the other day and they weren't even selling PCs unless they were gaming ones. It seems most consumer electronics have switched over to laptops.
Also, this reminds me so much of the download more RAM ads back in the day.
1 reply →
I'm still hoping some future LLM is good and small enough for people to run local AI for everyday life.
1 reply →
If the AI bubble bursts and prices normalize because demand for AI hardware is reduced, then these companies might pay more attention to other markets like gaming again. But who knows the future anyway.
intel makes gpus :). Maybe games will be finally made again in a way that a PC can run them without needing a 3k GPU in there to get toward half the refreshrate of your monitor.
gaming does not equate to only things like the last of us or cyberpunk which need extreme machines. a lot of visual fidelity can be reached still without having such a monster. Just need to not use certain features which are currently pretty much exclusive to Nvidia...
1 reply →
I'm just sticking with Tetris.
On the bright side, you’ll be able to play Skyrim-halo-Pokémon-Minecraft as much as you want.
At least you'll be able to get a Pi 5 for $700.
1 reply →
Regarding graphics capabilities, haven't we reached "good enough" like a decade ago? Does anyone actually want to see ultra realistic gore when attacking an enemy? I'd also submit that photorealistic art style is not the most popular one either nowadays except for a handful of special sims like race car driving.
1 reply →
It's worse than centralization. These AI models have gobbled up all the world knowledge. If for some reason the Internet dies we will have no option but to be dependent on these proprietary, for profit, AI models for any information we need.
You might say that this is impossible but look at current trends. A lot of information today is getting shared in the walled gardens of Internet. You have to login to social media to view posts. The Twitter, Reddit threads that were accessible freely now require you to log in. Similar thing is happening across other networks. People are no longer asking questions on Stackoverflow. All those queries are gonig to AI. If someone chooses to not use AI, their options will be limited in future.
The free sharing of information on Internet is I think coming to an end.
Not only if the internet dies. If the country or countries managing the AI decide they don't like your country and ban you from using their (major) AI providers, in a world where most knowledge and work tanks will require access, you're screwed.
Not even talking dictatorship scenarios here. The USA might simply decide it doesn't like your country. Or maybe heavily cripple the models you can use, or censor them, for whatever reason.
I guess this is an argument for local AI. Probably not feasible for the less technically savvy.
1 reply →
It was the same with cloud and software as a service. We underuse the power of our local machines and pay high cost for modest resources that are bandwidth constrained for most users.
One consequence has been lower power requirement for local machines. This is partly why a 2015 MacBook is still perfectly serviceable for basic use in this day and age.
The AI boom first reversed the trend, to now try to get back to that cycle.
People long ago stopped buying computers and started using Saas on their mobile devices instead. Ask HP.
5 replies →
There has been a relatively strong local model community since the days of llama-3. IMO, the number of non-technical people interested in qlora, adapters, parameter fine tuning etc is remarkable.
that was when RAM and GPUs were cheap. Now that is dying, too.
Yes, we will. Eventually, specialized AI hardware (ASICs) will emerge that will be good for AI, but not much anything else. PCs are general purpose computers that are good at many things, but excel at few. There are quite a few startups working on it already.
The only way this may happen is when the internet were to be somehow destroyed.
Which would not be all too bad. It would also mean the end of stupid SaaS subscription services, and mass surveillance, adtech. And shitty propaganda.
And your local AI could emulate the good parts of the internet.
> And your local AI could emulate the good parts of the internet.
Like talking to people?
2 replies →
Trump and AI-power security research are both doing a good job of promoting installable software!
Yupppp. My current conspiracy theory, with all of the increasing hardware costs and how easy decompilation projects are, is that there is going to be a major push to eradicate consumer hardware and keep all software in the cloud.
Everybody will have a mini PC for the sole purpose of streaming content, with no storage to keep anything on it.
I would have laughed at the thought a few years ago, but now I am slowly starting to adopt some of the viewpoints of American second amendment hardliners.
It's just unfortunate that producing a half decent computing platform is significantly more difficult than a rifle (and that in the case of said hardliners, the capital is backing them, here it's working against us).
I don't know how much of a conspiracy that is. If the current trend of hardware costs keep rising to the point of pricing people out of having any real compute locally, and chip makers actively de-prioritizing consumer-grade memory, GPUs, etc, companies will (more) heavily push thin clients and streaming for everything.
You know what that era has in common with fossil fuel? It takes a very specialized infrastructure and supply chain that you can limit with lobbying efforts and gatekeeping so that all the money only flows to you and your cronies.
> It feels like a step back towards mainframe era.
:insert Will Smith presenting meme:
The Cloud
Yes we will and we all know it. All those are raw materials.
I never left the PC era, but the RAM prices kind of hurt me. I don't know when I would want to buy a new PC - it seems to be 3x the cost for barely any real benefits over the status quo.
most games which require that big PC are poorly optimised and often times they arent even fun. these companies focus on visual fidelity and give all their engineers insane machines to build the games on. that has beenn destroying PC gaming way before AI/LLMs came into the picture.
I am using AI now to make a game engine that will run and make 'nice enough' graphics on simpler machines. things like laptops with iGPU and 4gb of ram.
U can still get quite ok graphics, and make very complex and rich gameplay systems using such a machine. It just needs to be the target machine while developing so the right tradeoffs are made.
Which is not a bad thing per se: most of use could use our devices a little longer than we usually do.
[dead]
There's a lot of hacking going on right now with small (qwen 3.x and gemma 4 based) and medium (deepseek flash and others) models alike.
Have an agentic enough setup and they'll do anything that the biggest closed models can. They'll also do more, making them the true frontier.
A sensible point of entry is a 2899$ Mac mini.
If you're not partaking that's only on you.
> A sensible point of entry is a 2899$ Mac mini.
> If you're not partaking that's only on you.
There's honestly nothing sensible about that for a lot of developer budgets across the globe. Don't assume most folks have $3k to burn.
Yes, but that's a lot of money if you don't already have the hardware, plus you'll still be paying for electricity costs. (No comment on relative capabilities.)
$3k being a point of entry for a pale imitation of the models being compared to is not very inspiring.
The quote in context really wasn’t that weird https://sputnikintelligence.com/things/quote/6vqm-hkv5-qm1d
The quote assumes that all of humanity has the same goals as a corporation does: that every individual person desires maximum utilization of components for the sake of company shareholders. Individual people want a computer and just can't buy them because the entire world's memory chip supply, flash storage supply, and increasingly hard drive supply is being swallowed into the maws of corporations who would love nothing more than to sell you tiny bits of that compute through a monthly subscription in perpetuity.
Not everyone subscribes to the "cloud compute is more important than everything else" outlook, but everyone is affected by it nonetheless.
It sort of is, no? To agree with it, you need to share the goal of maximum utilization. Sam Altman seems to take that as a given. But clearly people disagree and not just with RAM. Most kitchens and bathrooms are unused most of the time, but that doesn't mean every home having one is bad.
No, he was not saying that was his goal! That's what everyone seems to misunderstand about this quote.
It's like a highrise developer saying "people think our buildings take up a lot of land, but actually houses are much worse from a land use perspective". Which is objectively true, and yet does not mean the developer thinks the entire world should be turned into houses, or even that they dislike houses!
That quote wasn’t that weird in co text and Sam says a lot of things on podcasts see some https://sputnikintelligence.com/people/zlsl-zr6t-7llx
The quote wasn't weird and made total sense in Altman's POV. It was just egoistic and myopic regarding how people feel about ownership and independence.
Why do people pay $15 just to buy domains for these meme websites?
We pay $15 for frivolous things all the time
Social commentary.
It's the proof that people have too much money and should instead give it to Sam Altman that will make a more efficient use of it for our collective wellbeing®.
I believe the kids say "it's for the lulz"
I suspect that this actually downloads something instead of uploading. I have no proof, but I believe it.
It's a reference to the old "download more RAM" meme.
I would be shocked if it did anything at all.
I tried to upload 16 GB to help Zuckerberg, but the GUI is suspicious.
[dead]
From a quick skim of the page source (including a dynamically created iframe) it just does a little animation and locally allocates some useless arrays in JavaScript to waste your "uploaded" RAM.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
This is silly, and I know Sam Altman said that consumers having RAM is not an efficient usage, but the real villains here are the memory manufacturers that have time and again have been proven to collude on price fixing and whatnot, and are now not scaling up production according to demand.
I don’t think it’s very productive to go on a witch hunt on someone who said something stupid and is being taken out of context (albeit he should have known not to say that).
As far as I can see, there's no evidence they're colluding here. They're just capturing the money that otherwise would have gone to scalpers.
Apparently the last three times this cycle happened, the manufacturers that built out capacity went bankrupt when it popped, and the ones that didn't didn't, so they're actually being wise.
Well there was no evidence they were colluding until they got caught the previous two (three?) times.
3 replies →
The RAM industry is littered with corpses. It’s a boom and bust business and fabs are extraordinarily expensive.
>and are now not scaling up production according to demand.
hopefully china does it and hynix burns in hell
>have been proven to collude on price fixing and whatnot
where is the proof?
>and are now not scaling up production according to demand.
fabs are being built by maaany companies, but it takes years
> where is the proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing
To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.[3]
re "what proof means": Im not your house boy. Go get it yourself.
proof ... the thing a narcissist demands from you, but will never acknowledge having received.
its a good lever when it works.
7 replies →
> are now not scaling up production according to demand.
Would you though? If/when the AI bubble pops and the buildout of data centres either stops or plateaus then they'd suddenly be sitting in a vastly oversaturated market and struggle to make it to the end of the year.
If there was healthy competition, yes, because it’s not as if this hasn’t been going on for years at this point.
2 replies →
> struggle to make it to the end of the year.
Considering the profits they've made this year, on average they still wouldn't do too bad. SK Hynix employees got almost $500k for example, I can live on that for a few years. Companies are often also legally required to compete with each other.
But they are scaling up the production, they just conveniently did it a bit late. I also fear if/when the bubble pops, they'll quickly reduce the production to ensure prices stay high. I fear Nvidia could do the same. I think it'll be hard for all of them to go back to a world where they're paid way less per component, so instead of accepting that, they can reduce the supply and keep the prices high. Only antitrust regulators could intervene to stop that.
Many people expect prices to go down after the bubble pops, but it may not happen as much as we would want to.
Remember when the dot com bubble burst and after that the Internet became a billion times more important than before? Wikipedia didn't even exist when the dot com bubble collapsed!
All that bubble popping will do is wipe out some investor's money. Everything else will stay and become more and more important.
But of course, it is more profitable to sell one item for $1000 than it is to sell ten items for $100 each. And even if a competitor shows up, you can just price dump with all the extra money you already made until that competitor goes away.
1 reply →
> and are now not scaling up production according to demand
1) boom and bust cycle in memory industry is a repeated problem
2) companies are not obligated to scale up
> and is being taken out of context
no it is not - Altman is lying by omission[0] by implicating that various important costs are not real
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50400515 for longer comment on that
Witch hunt?! Sam said something goofy, a goofy little website was made to poke fun at what he said.
Good god the internet is so sensitive nowadays
Nothing silly was said really. The remark was specifically about local inference and RAM supply issues and it’s entirely true - if all current AI users tried to switch to local models, it would make the RAM availability situation much worse. I userstand that regular Twitter folk doesn’t grasp that, but this isn’t Twitter.
2 replies →
It’s almost like it’s a calculated move to distract from other things.
> but the real villains here are the memory manufacturers
Ah yes Sam Altman is not a real villain despite OpenAI locking up 40% of global DRAM supply.
They are both villains.
If a customer ask me to get all my butchery stock for a year, it will make thousands of client unhappy and will make one client happy, so I'll simply refuse.
This is not how business is supposed to be, the world is not supposed to be a B2B chaos.
I know how the business is done "supply demand" bla bla. That does not make it ethical one bit.
It wouldn't matter if they made enough of it to meet demand.
It really seems like the majority audience of this site (lukewarm left wing nerds, let's be honest) is trying to square a circle with the unwavering AI support (I mean the ecosystem and the people, not the technology, which is indeed great).
If you look outside the tech bro / stock bro / tech worker circles and into the mass left wing populace everyone HATES ai and ai data centers... the Altmans, the Amodeis, the Huangs, they are not the devil himself levels just yet (cough, Musk, cough), but they are climbing up there.
People's jobs being taken (and especially entry/junior jobs, you know, the ones young people, who voted massively blue, need to get started in life), data centers increasing their electric bills or polluting the air with gigawatt level gas turbines (or both), consumer electronics prices rocketing up (~400% increases YoY in RAM and SSD prices) just so the corporate capitalist class can hoard millions of gpus in warehouses.
I mean, if the democrat politicians getting into power keep their promises and step on AI buildout's neck, it could be lights out for the AI bros.
3 replies →
It was taken out of context for sure but still find this site amusing. Perhaps even prophetic, can we build enough ram and vram for future requirements when theres only a few holding the keys.
Obligatory: "we're curing cancer r-right?" No Nat we're making slop videos with it.
All are responsible - the AI greedy companies and the suppliers.
If the USA were a real democracy they would do something about it. After all this even violates capitalism, e. g. free market leading to reduced prices. But the USA is run by a criminal gang, pocketing away money - the TechBros and their cronies. They just make any legislation they want to, with a bit sugar coating on top to not appear too overly evil or greedy. But they are.
+1
Its because of the companies too i mean they are not making too much ram on purpose to make supply low and demand high.
No, the foundries are just redirecting production to HBM, which is in much higher demand.
Except that's nonsense, any company that could make more ram absolutely would because the damand is insane. There is no universe or economy where it would be profitable to artificially lower your production to keep prices high when you can just make more ram.
It depends on how much inelastic demand there is. For example:
Let's say there are 10 companies that need 1 GB of RAM each in a life-or-death scenario. They would be willing to pay $100,000,000 per GB to get 1 GB of RAM.
At the same time, there are 90 more companies that need 1 GB of RAM each to make certain quarterly targets. They are willing to pay $10,000 per GB to get 1 GB of RAM.
If you make 9 GB of RAM, you can sell it for $900,000,000. If you make 99 GB of RAM, you can only sell it for $990,000, because the 10 life-or-death companies only need to bid high enough to push out a quarterly-target company.
It's a bit of a contrived example, but it shows you how restricting supply can boost total revenue if there is a segment of the market that has inelastic demand. (this is why medicine pricing has to be regulated - in the medical industry, there are lots of inelastic demand scenarios that can lead to predatory pricing)
3 replies →
Until making more means huge capex building extra factories. Semiconductors is famously a boom and bust industry, building too much in the boom will kill your company.
1 reply →
Really? You never heard about how OPEC?
3 replies →
This is stupid.
I feel like you had to live through the download more RAM scam/meme of the early internet to fully appreciate the joke. I remember installing it.
[dead]
If you want the personal thanks from Altman without having to actually give up your RAM, you can download some here first https://downloadmoreram.com and then upload that to Altman.
Someone should just FXP it over
I figured it was a cute tongue-in-cheek thing, and crashed my browser tab with a 16gb ask.
that could've been crummy for someone; you should warn that your cute little complaint actually eats ram; half is clearly fiction but the OOM isn't.
What did you expect to happen instead?
Do you also click on the links of the Nigerian princes?
While I’m not sure what this does, I’ve made sure to have chatgpt do it for me, safely from the cloud.
We don't have to talk about paperclips anymore, it's RAM. Anyone want to play a game of ram chip maximizer?
https://codeberg.org/TheZoq2/uploadyourram.org/commit/3b5727...
"Iniital commit"
Lol, little cringe "Look guys, how human I am!!"
Leave Sam alone! Your wit and guile is not appreciated. We would prefer you punch down or across in future engagements.
On a less sarcastic note, I wonder if a community based compute donation could actually help offset knowledge and compute centralisation.
Incentive is difficult but anti-AI sentiment is still as strong as ever. Maybe an A-v-A (in the spirit of H-v-H) campaign might pull in some.
I tried donating 16GB of RAM and it crashed my browser :D
Same. Hope it was a zipbomb right into his mailbox.
The real solution is even simpler than having everyone upload their RAM to him: Sam can ask Claude (or ChatGPT, if OpenAI takes diversity hires) to build him a DRAM fab, using ultrathinking, making no mistakes.
i agree with sam.
Plus it's far more efficient to buy tons of gpu's for the shelves rather than actually use them.
Why isn’t Sam Altman just using SoftRAM?
Tweet this at him everyone
This is his stupidest argument ever! I can't believe no one replies back properly:
Just give us back our RAM prices so that everyone can afford 256GB DDR5 and run their models locally!
This solves the datacenter problem and it's impacts, RAMageddon, SSDgeddon, etc..
and they can just sell us the improved models without the hassle of doing the compute themselves..
What's the problem? With the proper ToC's they would still get our data.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sam Altman's argument was that people tend to not run their consumer electronics at 100% 24/7, and so views the time that's not happening as wasted potential for RAM that could be sitting in a data center. I sincerely reject that notion, but from that... utilitarian perspective it's hard to argue that spreading out the world's limited RAM supply across thousands of personal machines would fix any issues
>so consumers are left to feel the guilt of having unused RAM in their computers
Funny WEB Site!
Not me, I have 2 8G DDR4 sticks sitting in a draw that I purchased a few of years ago when they were cheap. I was going to use them to upgrade my W541 to 32G, but I have one of the first models that the max is 16G. So saving them in case I have RAM issues.
If Sam wants them, he can pay me 5000 USD each for them, otherwise I will proudly hang on to them. If I knew his email I would send him a pic of them saying "hahaha" :)
[dead]
Found the person who consumed the fake propaganda about the Sam Altman quote.
Yep. Not only that but the quote (even if taken out of context) is factual. >99% of people load up their computers with comical amounts of ram when they really, really don't need it. This excess then only fuels the creation of memory inefficient apps. People are in shock when I tell them they could take the whole OS state when running any AAA game, reduce memory usage by an order of magnitude (if optimized correctly) and they couldn't spot a single difference. Most of those >200GB game installs could literally be reduced to a few hundred MB (no, you don't need massive textures + you can generate most on the fly).
I get that I'm falling for low quality bait here, but what about him saying that it's terrible for people to have RAM is "fake propaganda"? The entire exact quote is:
> From a global allocation perspective, actually, it’s quite terrible to have everybody have a bunch of the world’s limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used 5% of the time. You want maximum utilization in the cloud if you’re trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment.
That's a ghoulish point of view that puts real living humans on a lower hung than the poor poor corporations who just want RAM to be so expensive that everyone needs to buy compute from them. Convenient for the corporations!
This is tremendously fake news. Everbody knows it. The best people say it's fake.