| |
Didn't they just recently invest in them? Curious about their strategy, considering NVIDIA already does Nemotron and i think diffusion models as well. |
|
 | |
Their strategy is to prevent open models from proliferating, so their massive investments in these AI frauds are not completely unwound. That's my take, at least. Nemotron is TERRIBLE, and purposefully so. It must be. They cannot be THAT BAD at training AI models. I don't believe it. |
|
|
| |
But their goal would be to ensure it only runs on their chips, and not any competitors. I can't see how they could do that if the best models truely were "Open". I can see one of Nvidia's biggest fears is the inference hardware becoming commoditised. |
|
| |
can someone weigh in on this. what's the actual play here are they actually suppressing the western open models? china doesn't give a fuck either way imo, they see the weakness emerging at the intersection of all the labs, everybody knew there was no moat, so they're gonna control its direction and basically tell the Jev guys what they want them to work on |
|
| |
It’s just an illogical conspiracy theory. Open weights models still have to run on someone’s chips. NVIDIA is model-agnostic. They are just trying to grow the pie because they have nobody else competing for slices. My guess is they want as many frontier models using their chips as possible. The only threat to their business is companies making their own chips which Google does and the others are working toward. The last thing they want is only 3 frontier labs who are all not buying NVIDIA. |
|
|
| |
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could be considered the worst regulation of 21 century. It helped created behemoth corporations, where a single person can misallocate hundred of billon of dollars (Oh, hi Mark), they can buy out any competition. Right now US economy is basically a centrally planned economy. |
|
| |
Reflection AI was founded in 2024. Is it really consolidation when new companies spawn out of nothing and get acquired 2 years later? That's just normal M&A churn. |
|
|
| |
Back in the day, things like these were outlawed and the government tried to ensure competition in the markets: > The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright. Thus, specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. [...] Ultimately, this issue of the studios' then-alleged (and later upheld) illegal trade practices led to all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic.... Nowadays it seems like "vertically integrated" is something most companies openly aim for. |
|
| |
As usual, Wikipedia has it backward. There were very few theaters in existence able to show films produced by the studios. They invested in theaters and found local businessmen to operate them, both as sole proprietors and as partners. The investment was out of necessity, not interest in monopolies. Writers and directors craved an audience, so they appealed to studios for funding. That’s opportunity meeting, not monopolistic practices. |
|
|
|
| |
I don't love that it's Nvidia. They're already in some weird incestuous thing with two of those three and the rest of the market. |
|
|
|
| |
Eh, given the level of trading between NVidia and the established AI companies will it be a true competitor? |
|