The gargantuan computational cost of running the machine learning processing that is now required for protein folding and molecular docking is not.
Sure but do you need the absolute gargantuan capacity that is being built right now for that? if so, for how long and at what cost?
The point is not that GPU per se are of little value... the point is that what would you do with 10,000 rocket ships if you only have 1000 projects that may be able to use them? and what can those projects actually pay? can they cover the cost of the 10,000 rockets you built?
He is changing his tune now that lawsuits started flying
They outright came out saying Tylenol during pregnancy causes autism a few weeks back... now they acknowledge they are full of shit but added a "suggest" to save some face.
Again, the gist of this news is that he is backtracking. To expect they will quote everything he said in the headline is nonsense (specially when it literally is nonsense), otherwise you'd expect the headline to contain the entire article
this is not a bad analogy, but you are off by orders of magnitude
more importantly, both Uber and Amazon always had a path to profitability (Amazon specifically was already making tons of money on AWS long before the store front made money). AI has already been shown to not have a path to profitability; whatever little value companies around the world have been able to extract, cannot pay the cost of producing it.
think of it this way:
You produce a little car that can drive 2 people and some bags around, it costs you $1000 to make and you sell it for $3000 which a ton of people can afford... you have a path to profitability
I enter the market with a car that can carry 20 people, plus full on luggage for all and it moves twice as fast... but, in practice, I can only really move 3 people and often take them the wrong way, also the luggage was a complete lie and I can only allow passengers with their purses... also my car cost $50,000 to make so I would have to sell it for $70,000 and nobody would pay that when they could get 20 of your cars for less... also also, I promised the people making some parts of my car that would invest 7 kajillion on their companies somehow.
And even though NVIDIA is better place as they do produce something, but the something in play has little value out of the AI bubble.
NVIDIA could be left holding the bag on a super increased capacity to produce something that nobody wants anymore (or at least nowhere near at the levels we have now) so they are still very much exposed.
What? there was no such thing a "bubble" around the Metaverse... (at least not the economic slang term "bubble")
From the first video of the Zuck presenting the idea, everyone just laugh it off... Meta did waste tons of money on it but they had the money to burn so there was no bubble at all in play here
If I am rich and stupid, I may think a pool in the roof of my house is a great idea. I can spend the value of the house having it built and then have the house collapse on me. Since I am rich, I can just buy another house or pay to rebuild it and that's the end... no bubble.
However, if I am pitching plans for pools on roofs... and millions of people buy into it, many of whom can barely afford my terrible plans, when the houses start collapsing, too many people will be left with no house or means to procure another one... that's a bubble
yes but they have provided no such "studies" to "suggest" this link... it is literally the opinion, without ANY SUBSTANCE, of a guy who chooses to swim in an open sewer
What "studies"? you are now literally making things up and pretending this is less clickbait?
A month later, Trump and Kennedy, neither of whom are doctors, held a press conference in September to specifically warn pregnant women against taking the medication without citing any scientific evidence.
Even the FDA, under these absolute morons, cannot come up with anything to throw at Acetaminophen
"The FDA is responding to prior clinical and laboratory studies that suggest a potential association between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes," the agency said in its announcement. "FDA also recognizes that there are contrary studies showing no association and that there can be risks for untreated fever in pregnancy, both for the mother and fetus. "
and this is your leader