ChatGPT is basically the best LLM of its kind. As for Nvidia I’m not talking about hardware I’m talking about all of the models it’s trained to do everything from DLSS and ACE to creating virtual characters that can converse and respond naturally to a human being.
Absolutely not true. Disclaimer, I do work for NVIDIA as a forward deployed AI Engineer/Solutions Architect—meaning I don’t build AI software internally for NVIDIA but I embed with their customers’ engineering teams to help them build their AI software and deploy and run their models on NVIDIA hardware and software. edit: any opinions stated are solely my own, N has a PR office to state any official company opinions.
To state this as simply as possible: I wouldn’t have a job if our customers weren’t seeing tremendous benefit from AI technology. The companies I work with typically are very sensitive to CapX and OpX costs of AI—they self-serve in private clouds. If it doesn’t help them make money (revenue growth) or save money (efficiency), then it’s gone—and so am I. I’ve seen it happen; entire engineering teams laid off because a technology just couldn’t be implemented in a cost-effective way.
LLMs are a small subset of AI and Accelerated-Compute workflows in general.
To state this as simply as possible: I wouldn’t have a job if our customers weren’t seeing tremendous benefit from AI technology.
Right because corporate management doesn’t ever blindly and stupidly overinvest in fads that blow up in their faces…
I work with typically are very sensitive to CapX and OpX costs of AI—they self-serve in private clouds. If it doesn’t help them make money (revenue growth) or save money (efficiency), then it’s gone—and so am I.
You clearly have no clue what you’re on about. As someone with a degrees and experience in both CS and Finance all I have to say is that’s not at all how these things work. Plenty of companies lose money on these things in the hopes that their FP&A projection fever dreams will come true. And they’re wrong much more often than you seem to think. FP&A is more art than science and you can get financial models to support any argument you want to make to convince management to keep investing in what you think they should. And plenty of CEOs and boards are stupid enough to buy it. A lot of the AI hype has been bought and sold that way in the hopes that it would be worthwhile eventually or that other alternatives can’t be just as good or better.
I’ve seen it happen; entire engineering teams laid off because a technology just couldn’t be implemented in a cost-effective way.
This is usually what happens once they finally realize spending money on hype doesn’t pay off and go back to more established business analytics, operations research, and conventional software which never makes mistakes if it’s programmed correctly.
LLMs are a small subset of AI and Accelerated-Compute workflows in general.
No one ever said otherwise. And we’re talking about AI only, no moving the goalposts to accelerated computing, which is a mechanism through which to implement a wide range of solutions and not a specific one in and of itself.
That’s fair. I see what I see at an engineering and architecture level. You see what you see at the business level.
That said. I stand by my statement because I and most of my colleagues in similar roles get continued, repeated and expanded-scope engagements. Definitely in LLMs and genAI in general especially over the last 3-5 years or so, but definitely not just in LLMs.
“AI” is an incredibly wide and deep field; much more so than the common perception of what it is and does.
Perhaps I’m just not as jaded in my tech career.
operations research, and conventional software which never makes mistakes if it’s programmed correctly.
Now this is where I push back. I spent the first decade of my tech career doing ops research/industrial engineering (in parallel with process engineering). You’d shit a brick if you knew how much “fudge-factoring” and “completely disconnected from reality—aka we have no fucking clue” assumptions go into the “conventional” models that inform supply-chain analytics, business process engineering, etc. To state that they “never make mistakes” is laughable.
That’s fair. I see what I see at an engineering and architecture level. You see what you see at the business level.
I respect that. Finance was my old career and I hated it. I liked coding more so I went back got my M.S. in CS and now do embedded software which I love. I left finance specifically because of what both of us have talked about. It’s all about using numbers to tell whatever story you want and it’s filled with corporate politics. I hated that world. It was disgusting and people were terrible two faced assholes.
That said. I stand by my statement because I and most of my colleagues in similar roles get continued, repeated and expanded-scope engagements. Definitely in LLMs and genAI in general especially over the last 3-5 years or so, but definitely not just in LLMs.
“AI” is an incredibly wide and deep field; much more so than the common perception of what it is and does.
I think I need to amend what I said before. AI as a whole is definitely useful for various things but what makes it a fad is that companies are basically committing the hammer fallacy with it. They’re throwing it at everything even things where it may not be a good solution just to say hey look we used AI. What I respect about you guys at Nvidia is that you all make really awesome AI based tools and software that actually does solve problems that other types of software and tools either cannot do or cannot do well and that’s how it should be.
At the same time I’m also a gamer and I really hope Uncle Jensen doesn’t forget about us and how we literally were his core market for most of Nvidia’s history as a business.
Now this is where I push back. I spent the first decade of my tech career doing ops research/industrial engineering (in parallel with process engineering). You’d shit a brick if you knew how much “fudge-factoring” and “completely disconnected from reality—aka we have no fucking clue” assumptions go into the “conventional” models that inform supply-chain analytics, business process engineering, etc. To state that they “never make mistakes” is laughable.
What I said was that traditional software if programmed correctly doesn’t make mistakes. As for operations research and supply chain optimization and all the rest of it, it’s not different from what I said about finance. You can make the models tell any story you want and it’s not even hard but the flip side is that the decision makers in your organization should be grilling you as an analyst on how you came up with your assumptions and why they make sense. I actually think this is an area where AI could be useful because if trained right it has no biases unlike human analysts.
The other thing to sort of take away from what I said is the “if it is programmed correctly” part which is also a big if. Humans make mistakes and we see it a lot in embedded where in some cases we need to flash our code onto a product and deploy it in a place where we won’t be able to update it for a long time or maybe ever and so testing and making sure the code works right and is safe is a huge thing. Tool like Rust help to an extent but even then errors can leak through and I’ve actually wondered how useful AI based tools could eventually be in proving the correctness of traditional software code or finding potential bugs and sources of unsafety. I think a deep learning based tool could make formal verification of software a much cheaper and more commonplace practice and I think on the hardware side they already have that sort of thing. I know AMD/Xilinx use machine learning in their FPGA tools to synthesize designs so I don’t see why we couldn’t use such a thing for software that needs to be correct the first time as well.
So that’s really it. My only gripe at all with AI and DL in particular is when executives who have no CS or engineering background throw around the term AI like it’s the magic solution to everything or always the best option when the reality is that sometimes it is and other times it isn’t and they need to have a competent technology professional make that call.
AI was 99% a fad. Besides OpenAI and Nvidia, none of the other corporations bullshitting about AI have made anything remotely useful using it.
I would say LLMs specifically are in that ball park. Things like machine vision have been boringly productive and relatively un hyped.
There’s certainly some utility to LLMs, but it’s hard to see through all the crazy over estimations and being shoved everywhere by grifters.
lalal AI has made some great innovations in taking songs and separating them into vocals and instrumentals. that’s a game changer for remix artists.
other than that niche utility and a handful of others, AI is largely bullshit.
Nvidia made money, but I’ve not seen OpenAI do anything useful, and they are not even profitable.
ChatGPT is basically the best LLM of its kind. As for Nvidia I’m not talking about hardware I’m talking about all of the models it’s trained to do everything from DLSS and ACE to creating virtual characters that can converse and respond naturally to a human being.
Absolutely not true. Disclaimer, I do work for NVIDIA as a forward deployed AI Engineer/Solutions Architect—meaning I don’t build AI software internally for NVIDIA but I embed with their customers’ engineering teams to help them build their AI software and deploy and run their models on NVIDIA hardware and software. edit: any opinions stated are solely my own, N has a PR office to state any official company opinions.
To state this as simply as possible: I wouldn’t have a job if our customers weren’t seeing tremendous benefit from AI technology. The companies I work with typically are very sensitive to CapX and OpX costs of AI—they self-serve in private clouds. If it doesn’t help them make money (revenue growth) or save money (efficiency), then it’s gone—and so am I. I’ve seen it happen; entire engineering teams laid off because a technology just couldn’t be implemented in a cost-effective way.
LLMs are a small subset of AI and Accelerated-Compute workflows in general.
Right because corporate management doesn’t ever blindly and stupidly overinvest in fads that blow up in their faces…
You clearly have no clue what you’re on about. As someone with a degrees and experience in both CS and Finance all I have to say is that’s not at all how these things work. Plenty of companies lose money on these things in the hopes that their FP&A projection fever dreams will come true. And they’re wrong much more often than you seem to think. FP&A is more art than science and you can get financial models to support any argument you want to make to convince management to keep investing in what you think they should. And plenty of CEOs and boards are stupid enough to buy it. A lot of the AI hype has been bought and sold that way in the hopes that it would be worthwhile eventually or that other alternatives can’t be just as good or better.
This is usually what happens once they finally realize spending money on hype doesn’t pay off and go back to more established business analytics, operations research, and conventional software which never makes mistakes if it’s programmed correctly.
No one ever said otherwise. And we’re talking about AI only, no moving the goalposts to accelerated computing, which is a mechanism through which to implement a wide range of solutions and not a specific one in and of itself.
That’s fair. I see what I see at an engineering and architecture level. You see what you see at the business level.
That said. I stand by my statement because I and most of my colleagues in similar roles get continued, repeated and expanded-scope engagements. Definitely in LLMs and genAI in general especially over the last 3-5 years or so, but definitely not just in LLMs.
“AI” is an incredibly wide and deep field; much more so than the common perception of what it is and does.
Perhaps I’m just not as jaded in my tech career.
Now this is where I push back. I spent the first decade of my tech career doing ops research/industrial engineering (in parallel with process engineering). You’d shit a brick if you knew how much “fudge-factoring” and “completely disconnected from reality—aka we have no fucking clue” assumptions go into the “conventional” models that inform supply-chain analytics, business process engineering, etc. To state that they “never make mistakes” is laughable.
I respect that. Finance was my old career and I hated it. I liked coding more so I went back got my M.S. in CS and now do embedded software which I love. I left finance specifically because of what both of us have talked about. It’s all about using numbers to tell whatever story you want and it’s filled with corporate politics. I hated that world. It was disgusting and people were terrible two faced assholes.
I think I need to amend what I said before. AI as a whole is definitely useful for various things but what makes it a fad is that companies are basically committing the hammer fallacy with it. They’re throwing it at everything even things where it may not be a good solution just to say hey look we used AI. What I respect about you guys at Nvidia is that you all make really awesome AI based tools and software that actually does solve problems that other types of software and tools either cannot do or cannot do well and that’s how it should be.
At the same time I’m also a gamer and I really hope Uncle Jensen doesn’t forget about us and how we literally were his core market for most of Nvidia’s history as a business.
What I said was that traditional software if programmed correctly doesn’t make mistakes. As for operations research and supply chain optimization and all the rest of it, it’s not different from what I said about finance. You can make the models tell any story you want and it’s not even hard but the flip side is that the decision makers in your organization should be grilling you as an analyst on how you came up with your assumptions and why they make sense. I actually think this is an area where AI could be useful because if trained right it has no biases unlike human analysts.
The other thing to sort of take away from what I said is the “if it is programmed correctly” part which is also a big if. Humans make mistakes and we see it a lot in embedded where in some cases we need to flash our code onto a product and deploy it in a place where we won’t be able to update it for a long time or maybe ever and so testing and making sure the code works right and is safe is a huge thing. Tool like Rust help to an extent but even then errors can leak through and I’ve actually wondered how useful AI based tools could eventually be in proving the correctness of traditional software code or finding potential bugs and sources of unsafety. I think a deep learning based tool could make formal verification of software a much cheaper and more commonplace practice and I think on the hardware side they already have that sort of thing. I know AMD/Xilinx use machine learning in their FPGA tools to synthesize designs so I don’t see why we couldn’t use such a thing for software that needs to be correct the first time as well.
So that’s really it. My only gripe at all with AI and DL in particular is when executives who have no CS or engineering background throw around the term AI like it’s the magic solution to everything or always the best option when the reality is that sometimes it is and other times it isn’t and they need to have a competent technology professional make that call.