Thread

Samsung is expected to more than double output of its HBM4 and HBM4E DRAM

562 points · 458 comments · giuliomagnifico

HarHarVeryFunny · 1789937583 · focus · HN ↗
On a related note, I was reading yesterday that apparently the real bottleneck for Chinese production of AI accelerators is HBM production, not processors or ASML equipment.
The lack of ASML EUV machines certainly hurts, and pushing DUV so hard results in abysmal yields of good chips, but you can compensate by running more wafers or making smaller chips, and the net result is that Huawei's Ascend production volume is limited by CXMT's HBM capacity not processor dies.
The problem is that HBM manufacture requires many steps (die thinning, via drilling, plating, alignment) where the equipment used by everyone else (Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron) is also blocked by sanctions, so the Chinese are having to develop all of this themselves too, which they have, but yields are currently low, even when using shorter HBM stacks.
1. jacquesm · 1789951954 · focus · HN ↗
  The only thing the West is achieving here is that sooner or later China will be able to compete on their own terms rather than ours. It may buy some time but the end result is very predictable.
  1. stingraycharles · 1789952664 · focus · HN ↗
    It baffles me how shortsighted the policymaking here is. Like, what did they expect to happen?
    odo1242 · 1789961233 · focus · HN ↗
    They probably weren't expecting AI foundation models / model research to be quite as fungible as they are
    safety1st · 1789965572 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes.
    Over the last 20 years the economy has become dysfunctional. It no longer really resembles a free market; monopolies have established barriers to entry everywhere. And the biggest investors are awash with helicopter money that's been doled out for favors by the political class.
    So those investors have tons of cash to burn and surprisingly few opportunities. Even within Silicon Valley/VC there are surprisingly few who seem to really understand the fundamental economics of software. Or perhaps those economics just aren't that important when you have billions of dollars on hand and cash is obviously not going to get you a return. Any whisper of possible exponential growth is worth throwing money at. Crypto? Why not. AI? Why not. Datacenters? Why not. Tulips? Why not.
    This is by all definitions an empire in decline. Everything is broken or fake. Everyone is afraid to do what needs to be done. Power forbids it. So we're all just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Our secret police aren't as bad as the late stage USSR's yet, but hold Uncle Sam's beer...
    (That's not a recommendation to try and time the nadir, by the way, as it could easily be 50 years away.)
    user43928 · 1789991387 · focus · HN ↗
    Datacenters and AI obviously work and come with a credible value proposition and path to profitability.
    Comparing this to crypto or turnips makes me doubt the merit of any other opinions your comment offers.
    pixl97 · 1790003890 · focus · HN ↗
    The initial growth of the internet was a boom bust cycle, and as you see the internet is still here. This is more about the economic paradigm that is being used to grow a technology versus the economic paradigm the technologies rate of growth can support over time.
    Just to give some rough numbers in the past 5 years the amount of GPU compute installed in FLOPS is somewhere over 5 times all the CPU flops that have ever existed.
    This has nothing to do with AI being good or bad or being able to produce things and economic value. It is by far the largest and fastest growth of any technology ever and we have zero clue about the economic stability of this grand experiment we're performing.
    user43928 · 1790005023 · focus · HN ↗
    The internet is a much more appropriate comparison than crypto or tulips, which bring no or negligible value.
    Some differences to the market at that time seems to be that during the dotcom bubble, many of the companies had little to no revenue.
    Leading AI labs already generate enormous revenue. The investments into capacity are needed to address the current demand.
    The situation seems somewhat less speculative.
    That said, I cannot predict how AI capabilities will develop and how demand will respond.
    Should capabilities plateau hard and soon, maybe the demand will not be there for the compute investments.
    If it does not, and instead AI applications in robotics, science, and self driving expand, chances seem reasonably good that the demand will be there, no?
    And as for the economic stability, much of the investment comes from existing giants like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, who have the necessary cash flow.
    These companies are less likely to collapse than some of the ones during the dotcom bubble.
    pixl97 · 1790005756 · focus · HN ↗
    Eh, I'd say it's closer to something like internet + tulips.
    It's the total amount of money in the economy that's been invested toward a potential outcome. AI represents the largest amount of money, and largest fractional part of the economy invested ever.
    Because of this AI could be the biggest economic boon ever, yet still not recover the full amount invested. This will have deep economic impacts that affect everyone and everything. At this point AI must achieve all its stated economic impacts or there will still be a huge economic crash that kills off any company that is over invested and cannot make a profit.
    Worse, the many of the perceived economic impacts of AI are not for humans like you or I, but the huge companies you listed. Even if they economically win, everyone else made out of meat could still lose.
    They say history doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. This, at least to me, sounds like a mixtape of "internet" + "tulips" + "1920s financial world leading to global political instability".
    Every potential outcome I see occurring pushes us closer to further instability, even if the economics on it work out on paper.
    user43928 · 1790008914 · focus · HN ↗
    > At this point AI must achieve all its stated economic impacts or there will still be a huge economic crash
    I had a look at the numbers.
    The investment into data centers is estimated around $800B/year currently.
    OpenAI + Anthropic combined had ARR of >$100B in July.
    Global labor income is around $65T/year, the US GDP $32T, the global one $126T.
    Global software spending: $1.4T/year.
    I am no financial analyst, but I don't think all the stated AI impacts have to be met just to recover the investments.
    A 1% productivity gain on global labor income represents $660B/year. At 5% we would look at $3.3T/year.
    They don't need to cure cancer to justify the investment, even though Amodei hopes to cure most major disease in the next 5-10 years.
    pixl97 · 1790012154 · focus · HN ↗
    Lets take this number for example
    >Global software spending: $1.4T/year.
    Out of this number how much of this goes to payroll that goes to humans versus how much of this goes to non-human infrastructure costs. The numbers suggest this is anywhere from 60 to 90%, with 70% being a reasonable average figure. Just under a trillion dollars paid directly to humans would disappear if AI somehow captured all of this market.
    Moreso the AI industry needs to capture these gains very fast or they will be crushed by interest payments on the massive debts they've accrued.
    >ven though Amodei hopes to cure most major disease in the next 5-10 years
    The average development time for medicine is 10 to 15 years before a single dollar is earned from said medicine. AI will shave very little off that as human testing and our stupidly complex bodies introduce all kinds of problems. Furthermore running head long into blindly using AI medicine is how you produce X risks from super intelligence AI.
    The speed at which AI has to develop in which to get profitability is the biggest risk, a potentially catastrophic risk at that.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.