Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Hard drives on backorder for two years as AI data centers trigger HDD shortage

    (www.tomshardware.com)
    138 points pabs3 | 12 comments | 12 Nov 25 05:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.61s | source | bottom
    1. margalabargala ◴[12 Nov 25 06:58 UTC] No.45897125[source]▶
    This is a long term good thing.

    It sucks right now and will probably suck through 2027.

    By 2028 or so we'll have a 50% drop in price-per-storage for these components.

    replies(3): >>45897233 #>>45897302 #>>45897449 #
    2. andy_ppp ◴[12 Nov 25 07:16 UTC] No.45897233[source]▶
    Will the AI bubble last until 2028? I’m still unclear how AI will return even 10% of this investment in profit.
    replies(1): >>45897461 #
    3. chrismorgan ◴[12 Nov 25 07:30 UTC] No.45897302[source]▶
    > By 2028 or so we'll have a 50% drop in price-per-storage for these components.

    Do you mean relative to six months ago, or now? Because a lot of the prices have already more than doubled.

    (I’m upset because the computer I’ve been planning to build, which three months ago would have come to around ₹90,000, is now up to ₹1,20,000 and climbing week by week, half due to price increases on the same part, half due to forced substitutions on RAM since the cheaper 32GB 6400MT/s DDR5 sticks are completely unavailable. And looking into laptops, for the first time ever I’m seeing manufacturet SODIMM or SSD upgrades being cheaper than aftermarket.)

    replies(1): >>45897880 #
    4. palmotea ◴[12 Nov 25 07:55 UTC] No.45897449[source]▶
    > This is a long term good thing. ... By 2028 or so we'll have a 50% drop in price-per-storage for these components.

    Per the op:

    > and the ongoing DRAM shortage is proof of this, with memory kits costing more than double what they did just a few months ago.

    > While enterprise-grade QLC SSDs would entirely power this pivot, Sandisk has already raised NAND prices by 50%, according to another DigiTimes report, after initially warning of a 10% increase two months ago.

    So you're basically saying prices may return to normal in two years, and that's somehow a good thing compared to them not being inflated in the first place?

    5. citrin_ru ◴[12 Nov 25 07:57 UTC] No.45897461[source]▶
    Depending on the future you predict 10% may be a good ROI - if AI will replace humans and traditional economy will collapse all other investments will loos value even more. In such scenario you cannot save the money you only can loose less if you will make a right investment.
    replies(2): >>45898260 #>>45899398 #
    6. walterbell ◴[12 Nov 25 08:54 UTC] No.45897880[source]▶
    > manufacturer SODIMM or SSD upgrades being cheaper than aftermarket.

    Temporarily thanks to old stock.

    7. adrianN ◴[12 Nov 25 09:52 UTC] No.45898260{3}[source]▶
    I'm not sure I understand why the economy would collapse if AI replaced humans. Wouldn't the companies just make more profit because they save labor costs and stonks go up?
    replies(1): >>45898575 #
    8. netdevphoenix ◴[12 Nov 25 10:38 UTC] No.45898575{4}[source]▶
    The economy is a macrosystem. For a company to make profit, someone needs to buy. For someone to buy a service or a product, they need to have the money needed to buy. If AI replaces humans and UBI doesn't happen, costs might drop to near zero but so will revenue as virtually no one will be able to buy anything. So the economy will certainly collapse.
    replies(1): >>45898903 #
    9. adrianN ◴[12 Nov 25 11:34 UTC] No.45898903{5}[source]▶
    It depends on how many jobs AI replaces and which. It is unlikely that LLMs will replaces plumbers any time soon for example. Many technological inventions have replaced humans in lots of jobs, the economy has only grown since then.
    replies(1): >>45899990 #
    10. andy_ppp ◴[12 Nov 25 12:36 UTC] No.45899398{3}[source]▶
    No I'm predicting a 90%+ loss.
    11. netdevphoenix ◴[12 Nov 25 13:38 UTC] No.45899990{6}[source]▶
    >Many technological inventions have replaced humans in lots of jobs, the economy has only grown since then.

    Indeed it has, but many of those it replaced did not necessarily get moved to better positions if they were moved at all. The industrial revolution was great if you were young and had little to no responsibilities. Your average middle aged farmer with a large family to feed faced poverty or near poverty and those who were able to move to the cities faced worse labour conditions. People on here love talking about the winners while conveniently ignoring the loser side.

    And that's not even mentioning the skilling up issue to which older workers are more vulnerable. Who will fund the nation wide skill up costs for them?

    replies(1): >>45905468 #
    12. rwyinuse ◴[12 Nov 25 19:54 UTC] No.45905468{7}[source]▶
    Industrial revolution was all right as long as you owned the farm, as most farmers did. The losers were those farm workers who weren't needed in as great numbers anymore, and they weren't paid well in the first place. I agree on labour conditions though, there industrialisation was a clear downgrade for many.

    What worries me about AI is how it's not obvious which new jobs it may create. Younger farm workers and children of farmers could just move and work in factories, where the employers mostly took care of their training. I can't see such opportunities here. I believe whole world needs either UBI, or governments paying for jobs that previously weren't seen worth paying for. Otherwise the economy will collapse due to mass unemployment and resulting lack of demand.