Next time the author would like to write an article like that, it’s better that they offer a new standard that is as flexible while also doing the work YAML is doing today
That’s the problem people IMO don’t understand - flexibility is one of many requirements; simplicity and ecosystem around are two more.
Hating YAML is same as being childish - yo using like something but can’t come up with anything better. Worse than YAML can be only complaining about YAML. Hating YAML is a cliche.
Its much easier to come up with jokes like this website than to change the ecosystem for better.
And I definitely think the websites like this is opposite to the engineering approach.
> That’s the problem people IMO don’t understand - flexibility is one of many requirements; simplicity and ecosystem around are two more.
Biggest issue IMO is moving goal posts and people wanting one format to do it all. Different formats are good for different things, except YAML, which again tries to do it all yet excels at nothing.
Sandbags against a tsunami. When has "pump the brakes on progress" ever worked out?
What we need is deep thinking on the implications and make the default way forward one where we want to go. In other words, we build a channel for the flood waters, not a wall. Creating a role for "somebody to deal with AI issues" is one of those hand-wavvy upper management moves that looks defensible but simply passes the buck to someone who structurally lacks the agency to actual move the needle.
> When has "pump the brakes on progress" ever worked out?
the only thing i can think of was when that Chinese scientist produced gene edited human babies. He was pretty much excommunicated from the scientific community and, eventually, spent some time in jail.
AI, on the other hand, has a huge profit potential and way too far out of the bag to go back in. To quote the movie Terminator, "it will never stop".
What surprises me even more is why Bill Gates writes this kind of bizarre, low-quality nonsense in the first place. What purpose does it serve? It’s so obviously shallow that it influences nothing and adds nothing to the conversation.
Yes. We can decide not to do bad things. Globally. Occasionally, it takes some time to figure out if something is bad. Especially when there's money to be made. But when we do, we can and have stopped doing them.
"A lot of people are skeptical of AI because it makes mistakes. But what's going to happen when it stops making mistakes??? It'll change the world!"
Honestly I suspect he's probably just cynically talking his book. All of this "AI is scary good / it'll be even scarier gooder soon" is no less advertising than slapping a cigarette logo on a racing car.
AI are improving their capacity at blazingly fast rate. Is noticing that AI psychosis? I'd say that believing that we are at the peak of LLM capabilities is some kind of psychosis due to large dose copium inhalation.
Our approach though is more tide-case agnostic and in the direction of brining full-fledged container orchestration converting from development to training and inference
It’s so ridiculous to see TPUs being compared to NVIDIA GPUs. IMO proprietary chips such as TPU had no future sure to the monopoly on the cloud services. There is no competition across the cloud services providers. The only way to access TPUs is through GCP.
As the result nobody wants to use them regardless of the technology. This is the biggest fault of GCP. Further the road, the gap between NVIDIA GPUs and Google TPUs (call it „moat“ or CUDA) is going to grow.
The opposite situation is with AMD which are avoiding the mistakes of Google.
My hope though is that AMD doesn’t start to compete with cloud service providers, e.g. by introducing their own cloud.
One thing worth note here - TPUs are optimized for a fairly constrained set of operations. Google’s had good success with them, but, like many of the other Google architectural choices, this will constrain Google’s technical choice space in the future - if they’ve gone all in on TPUs, future Google machine learning projects will be using the sets of operations the TPUs excel at because that’s what Google has a lot of, not necessarily because that’s the optimal choice. This will have knock-on effects across the industry due to Google’s significant influence on industry practice and technical direction.
Every major Cloud vendor is trying to develop their custom AI ASIC. Putting Google aside, Amazon has trainium/inferentia, which Anthropic uses quite extensively. Microsoft is doing sth. similar, although they are quite behind. OpenAI is doing it. Meta is doing it. That's why the stock price of Broadcom/Marvell soared.
Thank you! If you sign up for the waitlist on the aibutton.io landing page, I'll send you an email with answers to your questions once I've set up a product page and start selling.
I expect the product to be available in mid-August. A demo, along with information on price, battery life, etc., will be available in mid-July. I'll then email it to everyone on the waitlist.
I think it’s not misleading, but rather very clear that there are problems. v7 is compared to v5e. Also, notice that it’s not compared to competitors, and the price isn’t mentioned.
Finally, I think the much bigger issue with TPU is the software and developer experience. Without improvements there, there’s close to zero chance that anyone besides a few companies will use TPU. It’s barely viable if the trend continues.
> besides a few companies will use TPU. It’s barely viable if the trend continues
That doesn't matter much of those few companies are the biggest companies. Even with Nvidia majority of the revenue is being generated by a handful of hyperscalers.
You said: "notice that it’s not compared to competitors"
The article says: "When scaled to 9,216 chips per pod for a total of 42.5 Exaflops, Ironwood supports more than 24x the compute power of the world’s largest supercomputer – El Capitan – which offers just 1.7 Exaflops per pod."
I believe my original sentence was accurate. I was expecting the article to provide an objective comparison between TPUs and their main competitors. If you’re suggesting that El Capitan is the primary competitor, I’m not sure I agree, but I appreciate the perspective. Perhaps I was looking for other competitors, which is why I didn’t really pay attention to El Capitan.
