Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

>Tech stocks are responsible for most of the gains in stock market in past year.

Ok, but none of the major tech companies other than Nvidia are AI companies. Sure, some of the pop to MSFT's stock is probably because of the OpenAI deal, AWS, GCP, and Azure is riding some of the wave of new AI investment money coming in, but none of them are first and foremost AI companies selling AI.



sort by: page size:

> I think that since you are making the claim that generative AI is propping up stocks

I do think a very large part of the 9-month S&P500 run from 3600 -> 4500 has to do with NVIDIA + Microsoft, for what it's worth.


> Man, Microsoft is kicking ass at AI. Maybe the others have great AI models too but haven’t seen any large company release product after product with AI.

They invested in OpenAI, which was a smart move.


> So all this ‘pent up demand’ for AI (as investors) is basically the company that builds the tool?

They make the gold, not the tool. Ounce for ounce, a wafer of top end NVIDIA chips is the most valuable substance on earth.


> It doesn't really matter if the result is called AI or not

I strongly disagree. Wildly overvalued companies disrupt the economy and present huge risks - see Tesla or Nvidia (currently valued at $100m per employee - $3T market cap / 30k employees)


> AI doesn't have nearly as lucrative scams, so I doubt you will see the same investor frenzy.

Maybe you are right about the “frenzy”, but quantitatively speaking the market cap of Big Tech (including and especially nVidia) is probably larger than the crypto scams ever will be.

As a comparison the market cap of crypto is apparently less than the cap of nVidia. Share prices of other tech companies like Microsoft are also inflated due to expectations of AI related returns.

The “frenzy” may not be as insane but the money is definitely there. Especially with the crypto bubbles bursting the money has to go somewhere, unless you honestly believe they ended up in US treasury bonds or sth


> Becuase the AI cycle is still in the hype phase, and VCs and private capital is getting in right now before unloading onto retail investors to hold the bags.

I don't think so. Had this been the early SPAC days, we would have seen a lot of AI companies try that route right away. SEC has since cracked down on SPACs making them a lot harder to do. So, I don't think we are going to see the same runup of companies trying to go public that we did 25 years ago since there isn't as easy of an avenue to do so now.

As for the domination, I also don't believe that either. I don't think that there has been a single company that owns each of those categories that you list. There are many large players.

MI300x is 1/3 the FLOPS/$ than H100's and offers more ram. The hardware AI companies will leapfrog each other on each new release, and the software ones will be extremely competitive with each other thanks to the ability to just rent the high end hardware to do their training/inference.


> Wall Street is the first and perhaps only industry putting artificial intelligence toward actual productive ends

Huh?

How about Google, Facebook and endless number of other businesses that use artificial intelligence all the time in their programs.


> and certainly not the AI revolution either.

The AI revolution is still underway, we don't know who missed what yet. In term of research output. Most of the ground breaking work did "not" come from msft. They just bough they way in. Valid strategy, but definitely not novel.


>Is the AI bubble going to pop hard soon?

No. I think it's going to get way bigger. When it pops, it will still be bigger than February 2024.

Right now, the companies making money are Microsoft, OpenAI, AI chip makers. Google might join soon if they get their act together. Apple as well.

Basically, only existing large tech companies + OpenAI are making money so far.

However, I expect newer AI-only startups, to start making money in the near future. For example, I can see a company like Devin AI get loads of revenue very quick such as when ChatGPT launched.

As for open source AI companies like Stability, they're in trouble.

Unfortunately, no one has figured out how to make money with open source AI. It used to be that you'd open source your tool, get adoption, then offer a cloud. With open source AI so far, this hasn't come true for whatever reason. Perhaps we're just early.


> If that's the case then why are Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and even Google not nr 1 right now?

Microsoft is nr 1 right now, via OpenAI. Microsoft was behind on AI so they sent their compute for 49% of OpenAI and full access to OpenAI's models.


> AI is owned by Big Tech

Only the propaganda generating part of it. There is (and was) a lot of AI outside of LLMs.


> The AI doesn't exist. People will make it.

But it will require much less people to build the AI. And that's the only relevant point when stepping into the investors' shoes.


> ignoring the fact that the whole worry with AI is that it will obsolete industries within years.

Ignore these hyped claims by AI entrepreneurs. These are made to hustle money from investors. :-)


> the force for progress is strong enough that another AI winter is highly unlikely if useful applications continue to be developed.

Really disagree here. All it takes is a few well positioned people, like those at Nnaisense, to create companies promising AGI and sucking up investment dollars. We all know greed is rampant in finance, and AI tech is a big word in startups/innovation these days that can land big VC dollars. There is corruption/snake oil in tech too, and you'll find the greediest float around the most hyped tech.

I think companies like Nnaisense are the wrong place to invest, and that there is much more practical work to be done to advance humanity.


> Do you even need ai?

Doesn't matter if you need it, AI is used here as a magnet for VC money.


> Investing decisions are too subjective for the current state of AI

I think they are talking about AI driving growth in the broader economy, not making investment decisions.

Even still, it's not clear that AI will drive that kind of growth.


> Once AI systems can outperform CEOs, investors and boards will insist they be in charge.

I doubt it. You know who sits on those boards? The executives of other companies.


> Does he really believe this?

This is also a signal to the stock markets that Google is getting onto the AI bandwagon, to milk the current hype around AI.


> They willingly ignored most of the AI advances over the last 10 yers.

Nonsense.

CoreML, Apple Silicon (Neural Engine), and even Face ID all have AI advances built right into them.

Apple is not desperate to join the AI hype mania and neither is it a direct threat to them.

Their iDevices and services make enough tens of billions for them to eventually catch up or acquire other foundational AI companies to do that. That is a luxury reserved for extremely profitable companies that can afford to wait or enter late.

next

Legal | privacy