this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
534 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

78098 readers
3180 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] weew@lemmy.ca 63 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

Nvidia definitely isn't Enron. It's all of Nvidia's customers that are mini-Enrons.

Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed.

That's not Nvidia. Nvidia is selling actual product as fast as they can make it at whatever price they want to charge.

Nvidia's customers, on the other hand, are the ones who have to justify buying billions of dollars of product from Nvidia and explaining how they plan to make a profit from that.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

OPENAI is probably the one that will be set to lose the most, and then oracle? i dont know if palintir fits into this, but THEIls company have been desperately trying to peddle his services to multiple countries already.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 50 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Enron crashed because they were cooking their books and faking income, declaring potential profit where none existed

  • Sell chips to X

  • Receive stock in X

  • Value of stocks = discounted sum of future (fake) income

  • Booked as an asset on the balance sheet

This is exactly like Enron but the underlying commodity isn't energy, it's compute.

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Nvidia sells plenty of GPUs for actual money, they are good for it.

No, the real issue is the depreciation for the people owning GPUs. Your GPU will be usable for 4-6 years, and 2-4 of those years will be spent as ”the cheap old GPU. After that time, you need new GPUs. (And as the models are larger by then, you need moahr GPU)

How the actual fuck do these people expect to get any ROI on that scale with those timeframes? With training, maybe the trained model can be an asset (lol), but for inference there are basically no residual benefits.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 minute ago

enron sold plenty of gas and real things too: it’s the double handling that’s the problem; not the nature of the goods or services

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 hours ago

I feel like what sounds personally insane to us (and is, don't get the wrong idea), to the people making such decisions the situation is more like -

"Emerging market with unknown upside thanks to new and evolving capabilities, exploration and competitive advantage shaped and constrained, globally, by hardware capability. Not my money I'm betting, 'risk' is extreme opportunity for me, negative consequences borne by others. Let's go"

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm still rocking a GTX970 from 2014

[–] enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago

Do this:

  • Calculate the total power cost of running it at 100% load since 2014
  • Calculate Flops/Watt and compare with modern hardware
  • Calculate MTTF when running at 100% load. Remember that commercial support agreements are 4-5 years for a GPU, and if it dies after that, it stays dead.
  • In AI, consider the full failure domain (1 broken GPU = 7+ GPUs out of commission) for the above calculation.

You’ll probably end up with 4-6 years as the usable lifetime of your billion dollar investment. This entire industry is insane. (GTX 1080 here. Was considering an upgrade until the RAM prices hit.)

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

And the companies faking revenue instead of profit.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

It depends on the customer. Microsoft, Google, Amazon all have the revenue to carry the debts they are taking on. Oracle, Chat GPT, Musk and others are waay more sketchy.

The build out is going to take billions of dollars and these companies aren’t going to see a return for at least 5 years or more. The majors can carry that kind of debt load long term even if AI doesn’t pan out. Other businesses will struggle or go under if AI doesn’t bring the returns.

The next major movers will be companies that do a lot of IT business consulting like IBM. They are going to be busy helping non IT focused firms incorporate AI into their business model.

Finally if all these data centers pan out and the US keeps oscillating between shunning Renewables or Fossil fuels every time a new party comes to office we are going to have major problems with our energy infrastructure. Think energy bills as high as your mortgage within the next 5 years. Invest in utilities or energy companies and try to put solar and some kind of storage on your home.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

NVIDIA is producing and delivering GPUs. However this does NOT translate into income, and that's what's making it shady. These companies are paying in shares that will be worth nothing when it pops.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It's all of Nvidia's customers that are mini-Enrons.

I don't think that those are faking profit. Well, I don't have some comprehensive list, and maybe somewhere someone is, but not for the majority of purchases. It's possible that they won't wind up being long-term profitable, but there isn't fraud involved in that.

I don't think that the Enron analogy is very applicable in general. Like, what people who are critical of the extent of AI investment are worried about is analogous to the dot-com bubble, where the returns to investors from companies didn't warrant the level of investment and stock prices for many companies shot way up and then fell back down.

EDIT: It's fair to say that Nvidia is driving demand for its products. But..that may be quite sensible, since if you have a killer app or two explode, it can drive massive demand for the hardware that runs it. If you have capital available and control the best hardware out there, it may well make more sense to use that capital on building more demand for your product than to go and try and improve the product more. There's only so many chip engineers available that Nvidia can hire, and unless they want to get into the "writing AI software" game themselves, which would have them compete with their customers, I'd think that that's potentially a reasonable place to put their capital if they're trying to improve their business potential.

Nvidia sold a lot of hardware when cryptocurrency became popular. I think that it's probably fairly safe to say that AI applications have considerably more potential to provide utility than does cryptocurrency.