Oh I think I recall this. However Satya said that more a year and a half ago, eons in AI time, and maybe he even believed it at the time. But since then Microsoft's annual CapEx spend has gone from $65B to $116B. Not the actions of somebody concerned about an overbuild.
> But there's a significance to it if you are trying to use demand for a GPU as a proxy for demand for AI. That is where the industry is making serious mistakes.
Ah I see what you're saying. The AI industry is certainly not looking at just GPU demand as a proxy for AI demand, primarily because they themselves are creating the GPU demand -- but that is in response to other signals they are getting. Actually that's what I hoped to illustrate with the rest of my analysis; rather than a hypothesis of what AI might be able to do, it was more a hypothesis of the signals the industry is looking at (including various economic data sources) that drive its current spending frenzy.
Oh I think I recall this. However Satya said that more a year and a half ago, eons in AI time, and maybe he even believed it at the time. But since then Microsoft's annual CapEx spend has gone from $65B to $116B. Not the actions of somebody concerned about an overbuild.
> But there's a significance to it if you are trying to use demand for a GPU as a proxy for demand for AI. That is where the industry is making serious mistakes.
Ah I see what you're saying. The AI industry is certainly not looking at just GPU demand as a proxy for AI demand, primarily because they themselves are creating the GPU demand -- but that is in response to other signals they are getting. Actually that's what I hoped to illustrate with the rest of my analysis; rather than a hypothesis of what AI might be able to do, it was more a hypothesis of the signals the industry is looking at (including various economic data sources) that drive its current spending frenzy.