Nvidia CEO Huang Urges Faster AI Development (goldmansachs.com) 50
At a time when some are calling for a pause on the development of generative AI, Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of NVIDIA, has an argument for accelerating the work: AI advances are going to provide tools to better understand the technology and to make it safer, Huang said in a discussion with Goldman Sachs Asset Management. From a report: "We need to accelerate the development of AI as fast as possible, and the reason for that is because safety requires technology," Huang said in an interview at The Forum with Sung Cho, co-head of Tech Investing for Fundamental Equity in GSAM.
Consider how much safer today's passenger cars are compared with those of earlier generations, Huang suggested, because the technology has advanced. He cited as an example how OpenAI's ChatGPT uses reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to create guardrails that make its responses more relevant, accurate, and appropriate.
The RLHF is itself an AI model that sits around the core AI model. Huang lists examples of other AI technologies that hold promise for making the models safer and more effective. These range from retrieval augmented generation, in which the model gets information from a defined knowledge base or set of documents, to physics-informed reinforcement learning, which grounds the model in physical principles and constraints. "We need a bunch more technology like that," Huang said.
Consider how much safer today's passenger cars are compared with those of earlier generations, Huang suggested, because the technology has advanced. He cited as an example how OpenAI's ChatGPT uses reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to create guardrails that make its responses more relevant, accurate, and appropriate.
The RLHF is itself an AI model that sits around the core AI model. Huang lists examples of other AI technologies that hold promise for making the models safer and more effective. These range from retrieval augmented generation, in which the model gets information from a defined knowledge base or set of documents, to physics-informed reinforcement learning, which grounds the model in physical principles and constraints. "We need a bunch more technology like that," Huang said.
AI HW seller suggest more people give him money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AI HW seller suggest more people give him money (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it really telling how people always tend toward assuming somewhere between "the worst" and "outright conspiracies", and never consider aboveboard explanations.
Don't get me wrong. OF COURSE he has a vested interest in AI training. And OF COURSE one should weigh that in consideration of analyzing his statements. But it's also a fact that most people in the AI space are True Believers(TM).
Here's Huang seven years ago [youtube.com] predicting a bunch of ways that AI is about to revolutionize industries.
Here he is in 2017 predicting AI is going to eat software development [technologyreview.com].
Here he was back in 2019 calling AI the single most powerful force of our time [venturebeat.com]
NVidia took the lead on being the go-to source for AI training specifically because its leadership saw huge potential in AI and pushed hard to develop both hardware and software to accelerate AI training and inference. Long before AI became a Wall Street darling. While AMD kept thinking of GPUs as that tool to play video games.
So yes, OBVIOUSLY it's in NVidia's best interest to sell as many cards for AI training and inference as possible. But also, IMHO, Huang most definitely does have strong personal viewpoints on AI as well, and has for quite some time. As far as I can tell, at least since AlexNet started making waves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between talking about something in the middle of it selling you a ton of cards, and only while it's selling you a ton of cards (and sadly, he's right - the shine wore off but there's still an insane amount of resources dedicated to crypto and tons of crypto nuts), versus while the vast majority of the world is ignoring it.
Re:AI HW seller suggest more people give him money (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait you wrote AlexNet? :O
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Slashdot had a "follow" button :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: AI HW seller suggest more people give him mone (Score:2)
The skepticism here may have to do with some rather questionable business practices of Nvidia. Especially with regards to their history of anti-trust practices, shoddy quality control and underperformance for their products, and that hubbub about selling to crypto miners. This has happened within less then five years no less, so it is still fresh on our minds. And of course pumping up previous short-lived tech trends like VR to move products.
Even if AI really is the next big tech boon, it likely will not ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nvidia has been selling video cards for AI since at least 2010, so it didn't take a lot of prescience to talk about it in 2017.
Nvidia has been selling to the HPC market since the introduction of CUDA. The 2000's was filled with hype about big data. AI hype didn't start ramping until AlexNet, and even then, Nvidia was one of the early leaders in seeing the vision of AI (along with with Google and others). The early vision leaders saw that AI wasn't just categorizing cat photos, just like the current vision leaders of generative AI realize that generative AI isn't just ChatGPT.
Re: (Score:2)
just like the current vision leaders of generative AI realize that generative AI isn't just ChatGPT.
What vision leader are you talking about? Who thinks that generative AI is just ChatGPT?
Guy selling pickaxes wants more mining (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called pickaxes now? I thought it was still called Bitcoin.
GPU makers sure made a pretty penny with that particular fad too.
Please. (Score:3)
Re:Please. (Score:4, Informative)
The color of the sky is contingent upon factors such as the time of day, weather conditions, and geographic location. During sunrise or sunset, for instance, the sky often exhibits hues of red, orange, or pink, challenging the absolute assertion of its blueness. Additionally, in overcast or stormy weather, the sky may appear gray or even a multitude of colors, further complicating the categorical declaration of a consistently blue sky.
Wetness typically implies a condition of being exposed to moisture resulting from the application of a liquid to a dry surface. However, water (in the liquid state normally implied), by virtue of being a liquid can not correspondingly be "wet" . From a purely semantic standpoint, applying the descriptor "wet" to water may be considered ill-defined since becoming wet, in its conventional understanding, involves a transition of an object from dryness to dampness, a transformation that water inherently lacks due to its liquid nature; water is the thing that wets, not which becomes wet, and the other thing is that which is wet, not the water. One might critique the premise of wetness being ill-defined without a liquid making contact with a dry surface, but the only counterexample readily within reach in common parlance is the phrase "water is wet", thus rendering it a meaningless truism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
downvoted to conceal the dangerous truths you spread
Re: Please. (Score:1)
Pwnz0red / Edumacated.
Re: (Score:2)
Wetness isn't a transition, it's a state. Something is wet when it has liquid in or on it. Water has liquid in and on it.
If water isn't wet then it can only become wet when it comes in contact with something dry. Surely dry things do not make water wet.
Re: (Score:2)
" water is the thing that wets, not which becomes wet, and the other thing is that which is wet, not the water."
Re: (Score:2)
A surface that in its normal state is not wet is absolutely essential to the definition of wet - because otherwise, what would the adjective "wet" even be describing with relation to the object? "Wet cloth" implies the existence of "dry cloth". There's on such thing as dry water.
Wet isn't an adjective that means "having the properties of a liquid" (that word is "fluid") - it means "being in contact with a liquid". There's a solid dividing line between describing objects' properties within themselves and
Re: (Score:2)
"A surface that in its normal state is not wet is absolutely essential to the definition of wet"
Wet is a binary state so of course the opposite has to exist. That’s like saying that cold must exist because hot does; it’s only true because they’re semantic opposites. Heat and wet are physical properties whereas dry and cold are merely the lack of those properties.
As such, dry cannot exist without liquids but wet can exist without non-liquid states.
Obviously in our universe it’s imposs
Re: (Score:3)
People say "the sky is blue and water is wet" already know all of that. It's only "meaningless" in the sense that:
a. you're intentionally using trivial / semantic details that everyone already understands to avoid the original point and
b. (a) is the point being made by using that phrase in the first place
c. effective communication requires that people make a good faith effort not to do (a)
With regard to the OP - in context, the phrase means roughly all of: "I already know that the NVIDIA team has addition
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe we're just enjoying ourselves having a silly debate
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's the fun of it.
Me too, the West has to win the AI race (Score:1)
in other words (Score:3)
Of course (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
NVIDIA, is this you? (Score:2)
"NVIDIA delays launch of China focused AI chip" https://www.reuters.com/techno... [reuters.com]
NVIDIA failed (Score:4, Funny)
They failed badly in autonomous driving. They are at least 10 years behind Tesla, which is really bad because Tesla's autonomous driving capability isn't even 10 years old.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... yes and no.
In terms of self-driving programs... NVidia never had one. They've always just provided hardware for others.
In terms of inference, Tesla used to run on AMD GPUs. They switched to their own internally-developed system optimized solely for inference of their models, because it let them get better inference performance for their dollar, and in particular a lot lower power consumption. But many others still run on NVidia hardware
However, in the datacentre, for training, even Tesla is still h
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of self-driving programs... NVidia never had one. They've always just provided hardware for others.
Really? Then what's this? https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/s... [nvidia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a partnering program. Nvidia helps you to get into the space, by providing an API and other resources.
So it's "sort of" a self driving program, but it's only half of one. It's the beginnings of one.
They also have APIs for lots of car-related stuff, so they are obviously doing lots of work in the automobile software space, but it's all at the API level.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a self-driving program in the same way that CUDA + PyTorch + Transformers is a LLM.
Re: (Score:2)
** Still heavily dependent on NVidia
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is it [wikipedia.org] fully autonomous (SAE Level 5), despite the promise [theverge.com] made 7 years ago in 2016. It's always just a year away.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor is it [wikipedia.org] fully autonomous (SAE Level 5), despite the promise [theverge.com] made 7 years ago in 2016. It's always just a year away.
Level 5 is a dream for Tesla (and for everyone else, too) right now. Currently, Tesla is still struggling to achieve Level 3 in a way that the lawyers will allow them to market as Level 3.
Re: (Score:2)
They failed badly in autonomous driving. They are at least 10 years behind Tesla, which is really bad because Tesla's autonomous driving capability isn't even 10 years old.
They didn't fail at autonomous driving.
Autonomous driving itself failed.
If autonomous driving was successful, nVidia would be there with all the tools and products.
Re: (Score:2)
They failed badly in autonomous driving. They are at least 10 years behind Tesla, which is really bad because Tesla's autonomous driving capability isn't even 10 years old.
In terms of AV software, Tesla is not even close to being the gold standard. Waymo started earlier and its software is more capable. There are others that are also better than Tesla.
Tesla is also unique in being vertically integrated. They sell the compute hardware, the sensor rigs, the software, and the entire car with everything integrated. Nvidia sells mostly the compute hardware, and although it develops software, its current and likely future sales focus is on compute hardware. It's not clear if T
Maybe make their gpus safer first (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and: BUY MORE OF OUR CHIPS! (Score:2)
Caveat emptor...
Then lower prices Huang! (Score:4, Insightful)
You want faster AI development, lower prices and enable everyone to have more RAM and compute.
Instead of crippling cheap GPUs with low RAM that can't run AI as much as possible!
I own Nvidia stock, we need more AI! (Score:2)
Ok yes I do own a few shares but no we don't need a big AI push.
I bought N stock because other people think AI is "gOINg to ChAnGE EVrytHInG!" so their stock was going up.
I'm still waiting for real AI and not this pattern matching Tom foolery.
Buy more of my shit! (Score:1)
What "Urges faster development..." really means.
Well... (Score:2)