[untitled]
7 comments
As much as I don't want it to be, this is a misrepresentation of what the Nvidia exec was likely saying. "Humans are cheaper than AI!" vs "We have one engineer spending $2 million annually on compute".
You can think of one engineer as manager. Question is whether that $2 million spend is more or less than spend on employees doing the work the AI has delivered under direction of one engineer.
If the same work would have been cheaper if done by people, then yes AI is more expensive.
If the same work would have been cheaper if done by people, then yes AI is more expensive.
Fully transforming into infrastructure (datacenter) companies before unregulated surveillance ads business reaches end of life
If infrastructure business fails at least they may have some assets (real estate, hardware) to sell/lease
If infrastructure business fails at least they may have some assets (real estate, hardware) to sell/lease
If true, I don't see that as an impediment for replacement. I am sure A16Z would agree. Lots of other inputs feed the calculus, some portions of the business might run hotter.
Depends worker from which demographic. Worker from India is far cheaper then worker who is in California.
The title:
> ‘The cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees’: Nvidia executive says right now AI is more expensive than paying human workers
The hero image caption:
> Nvidia vice president of applied deep learning Bryan Catanzaro said right now, AI costs more than employees.
The article:
> “For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees,” Bryan Catanzaro, vice president of applied deep learning at Nvidia, recently told Axios.