“In 10 years, computers will be doing this a million times faster.” The head of Nvidia does not believe that there is a need to invest trillions of dollars in the production of chips for AI::Despite the fact that Nvidia is now almost the main beneficiary of the growing interest in AI, the head of the company, Jensen Huang, does not believe that

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Sorry I have doubts, because that would require a factor 4x increase every year for 10 years! 4x^10 = 1,048,576x
    Considering they historically have had problems achieving just twice the speed per year, it does not seem likely.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Why does that make a difference? Compute for AI is build on the progress for compute first for GPU then for data center. They are similar in nature.
        Yes they have exceeded 2x for AI for a while, but that has been achieved through exploding die size and cost, but even that won’t make a million times faster in 10 years possible, because they can’t increase die sizes any further.

        • ryannathans
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Building an ASIC for purpose built computation is significantly faster than generic gpu compute cores. Like when ASICs were built for bitcoin mining/sha256 and a little 5 watt usb device could outperform the best GPUs

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It may be even more specialized than that. It might be a return to analog computers.

            Which isn’t going to work for Nvidia’s traditional products, either.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The H200 is evolved from Nvidia GPU designs, and will be by far the most powerful AI component in existence when it arrives later this year, AI is now so complex, that it doesn’t really make sense to call it an ASIC or to use an ASIC for the purpose, and the cost is $40,000.- for a single H200 unit!!! So no not small 5 watt units, more like 100x that.
            If they could make small ASICS that did the same, they’d all do it. Nvidia AMD Intel Google Amazon Huawei etc. But it’s simply not an option.

            Edit:

            In principle the H200 AI/Compute system, is a giant cluster of tiny ASICS built onto one chip for massive parallel compute and greater speed.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          There’s also software improvements to consider, there’s a lot of room for efficiency improvements.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yes, but usually we keep those 2 kinds of optimizations separate, only combining chip design and production process. Because if the software is optimized, the hardware isn’t really doing the same thing.
        So yes AI speed may increase more than just the hardware, but for the most sophisticated systems, the tasks will be more complex, which may again slow the software down.
        So I think they will never be able to achieve it even when considering software optimizations too. Just the latest Tesla cars boast about 4 times higher resolution cameras, that will require 4 times the processing power to process image recognition, which then will be more accurate, but relatively slower.
        We are not where we want to be, and the systems of the future will clearly be more complex, and on the software are more likely to be slower than faster.