1. if you haven't seen the whole ram supply thing... apparently the answer is virtually "no".
2. I think that was OpenAI this time. But maybe it was Anthropic.
2. I think that was OpenAI this time. But maybe it was Anthropic.
> if you haven't seen the whole ram supply thing…
1. I've read about RAM supply, but I've also actually taken a look at shops and silicon is still for sale, so I am not sure how the claim is defensible - how are you quantifying it? And for "all of the silicon in the world"? And how much for non-frontier AI, and how much silicon for non-AI? (For what it's worth, Google AI says the claim is false.)
> demand they be the only place to run inference
2. I searched but can't find such a quote from any company - perhaps the quote was made up by a site in order to push an anti-AI viewpoint? Or what is the exact quote you are referring to? (For what it's worth, Google AI also says that claim is false too.)
2. If I made broad claims here that you both believed to be untrue and you'd tried to research and the only stuff you found showed they were lies (and 6 comment levels later, a supporting quote had still not been provided), would you argue that showed I was arguing in good faith?
3. My parent comment even specifically allowed that when you said "all the silicon in the world" you may not have meant what you said, and instead you only meant one specific sub-type of silicon in one specific sub-area of the world. If we changed your claim from "all the silicon in the world" to "one specific sub-type of silicon in a small region of the world", would your claim then be true? If so, what kind and where?
4. Is the idea that pointing out where a broad claim may actually be untrue should not be done? Is there a specific better comment that you believe would have better responded to your original claims about "demand they be the only place to run inference" and "all the silicon in the world"? I am open to hearing the specific reply you suggest.
5. But here, let's go with the idea that 6 levels in we are still assuming there is no bad faith. What is the good faith basis / quote on top of which to view "demand they be the only place to run inference" as being true?