←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
thunderbird120 ◴[] No.43661807[source]
This article doesn't mention TPUs anywhere. I don't think it's obvious for people outside of google's ecosystem just how extraordinarily good the JAX + TPU ecosystem is. Google several structural advantages over other major players, but the largest one is that they roll their own compute solution which is actually very mature and competitive. TPUs are extremely good at both training and inference[1] especially at scale. Google's ability to tailor their mature hardware to exactly what they need gives them a massive leg up on competition. AI companies fundamentally have to answer the question "what can you do that no one else can?". Google's hardware advantage provides an actual answer to that question which can't be erased the next time someone drops a new model onto huggingface.

[1]https://blog.google/products/google-cloud/ironwood-tpu-age-o...

replies(12): >>43661870 #>>43661974 #>>43663154 #>>43663455 #>>43663647 #>>43663720 #>>43663956 #>>43664320 #>>43664354 #>>43672472 #>>43673285 #>>43674134 #
marcusb ◴[] No.43663455[source]
From the article:

> I’m forgetting something. Oh, of course, Google is also a hardware company. With its left arm, Google is fighting Nvidia in the AI chip market (both to eliminate its former GPU dependence and to eventually sell its chips to other companies). How well are they doing? They just announced the 7th version of their TPU, Ironwood. The specifications are impressive. It’s a chip made for the AI era of inference, just like Nvidia Blackwell

replies(1): >>43663542 #
1. thunderbird120 ◴[] No.43663542[source]
Nice to see that they added that, but that section wasn't in the article when I wrote that comment.
replies(2): >>43664727 #>>43665836 #
2. marcusb ◴[] No.43664727[source]
Maybe they read your comment?
3. SubiculumCode ◴[] No.43665836[source]
It was there.
replies(1): >>43666866 #
4. marcusb ◴[] No.43666866[source]
To be fair to thunderbird120, the author of this piece made edits at some point. See https://archive.is/K4n9E. No discussion of the recent TPU releases, or TPUs for all, for that matter.
replies(1): >>43667914 #
5. SubiculumCode ◴[] No.43667914{3}[source]
You are correct. I misjudged.I thought I had read the article early, it must have been just after the edits.
replies(2): >>43667965 #>>43670221 #
6. marcusb ◴[] No.43667965{4}[source]
You and me both.
7. jibal ◴[] No.43670221{4}[source]
"I’m forgetting something." was a giant blaring clue. Take this as an opportunity to learn the lesson of not calling someone a liar unless you are very very sure and have taken all the evidence into account.
replies(1): >>43683913 #
8. SubiculumCode ◴[] No.43683913{5}[source]
whoah. I accused no one of lying. It is amazing how many people mix up this basic idea: Saying something that is incorrect is not the same as lying about it.
replies(1): >>43703430 #
9. jibal ◴[] No.43703430{6}[source]
"that section wasn't in the article when I wrote that comment."

"It was there."

Everyone understands that such naysaying is effectively an accusation of lying. In any case it was a totally low effort utterly inappropriate comment. Clearly you aren't going to learn the lesson.