You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
One of them proves me wrong. This time it's Senator Elizabeth Warren promoting the notion that Nvidia products are too proprietary, and they should be investigated for anti-trust violations.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and 10 progressive groups sent a letter to the Justice Department to launch an antitrust investigation against AI chip giant Nvidia over its business practices.
www.foxbusiness.com
Warren and 10 progressive groups, including Demand Progress, sent a letter this week calling for Justice Department antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter to investigate Nvidia over its business practices. The groups expressed concern that Nvidia's bundling of software and hardware products used in running complex models that train generative AI could undercut competition.
"This aggressively proprietary approach, which is strongly contrary to industry norms about collaboration and interoperability, acts to lock in customers and stifles innovation," the groups wrote.
If she knew what she was talking about, and I'm sure she doesn't, she would call out her targets as CUDA and NVLink. Of course, Intel (Xe Link) and AMD (Infinity Fabric) are innocent, because they're not so successful. Good grief.
I like your first two points, but CUDA and OneAPI are very different in objectives. Nonetheless, OneAPI is based on an open architecture (SYCL), and Intel is wrapping OneAPI in the Unified Acceleration Foundation (UXL) flag, so Warren could actually argue Intel has the open spec / open software strategy she thinks is better for the industry, while CUDA is proprietary and therefore evil.
The reality is, in my decades long experience with industry architectures and specifications, that open architectures with industry participation significantly slow down progress and reduce innovation.
Absolutely agree that Warren is out of her depth when it comes to technology and specifically trying to hold Nvidia into account here but I will argue that it would be wrong to just label her as "dumb". She has also supported many causes which has or would help our society. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was in large part her idea. The CFPB is responsible for protecting consumers from various scams and abuses by the financial sector. That is a good thing regardless of your political affiliation.
I don't agree with Warren and/or the progressives on a number of topics but their policies don't come close to horrifying me as much as the ones I hear about from the the right/far right.
Absolutely agree that Warren is out of her depth when it comes to technology and specifically trying to hold Nvidia into account here but I will argue that it would be wrong to just label her as "dumb".
Her advocacy for an anti-trust probe into Nvidia is just plain dumb. The only people who will benefit from this investigation, should the Justice Department choose to pursue this nonsensical accusation is a large group of attorneys. Speaking of attorneys, Warren falsely represented herself as Native American on her application to the Texas Bar Association in 1986, and if she wasn't a member of Congress she probably would have been disbarred for life in every state in which she was a member of the bar for committing perjury once this was revealed. She also claimed to be of Native American descent on her application to teach at the Harvard Law School, though Harvard, apparently not wanting to get in a spat with a Senator from their own state, issued informal denials that Warren's claims had any influence on them hiring her. Uh-huh.
So, Nvidia anti-trust nonsense + Texas Bar perjury + Harvard application misrepresentation = Really Dumb. That's my math, and I'm sticking to it.
That's fine and your opinion. Your posts are quite well-thought-out and intelligent and this is one of the rare times I would differ from you.
There are plenty of examples of politicians using their influence/privilege/access on both side of the aisle to benefit them. Warren isn't the first and won't be the last...it's sadly common. So while you can point to Warren's sins, I can point to a number of politicians on the right having done things far worst for our country (Examples:
1. Saying the Jan. 6th rioters are 'patriots'
2. Banning Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices
3. Opposing FCC Net Neutrality Rules
4. Going along and doing with whatever the big orange man says)
But honestly what is truly "Really Dumb" and will slowly affect our lives is the Supreme Court's killing of the "Chevron deference".
The Supreme Court has overturned a longstanding legal precedent, and weakened agencies like the EPA.
www.bbc.com
My math: Unrestrained interpretive authority to unknowledgeable political ideological judges = Really Really Dumb.
It's sad really...the levers of power in this country isn't balanced. I would even argue that there are already too many laws that benefit only the rich and/or large corporations that do NOT help our society as a whole. Is that what we (as a country) really want?! Sorry blueone ...this is a rhetorical question and I'm just venting for what I see (in my opinion) as travesties of justice.
There are plenty of examples of politicians using their influence/privilege/access on both side of the aisle to benefit them. Warren isn't the first and won't be the last...it's sadly common. So while you can point to Warren's sins, I can point to a number of politicians on the right having done things far worst for our country (Examples:
1. Saying the Jan. 6th rioters are 'patriots'
2. Banning Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices
3. Opposing FCC Net Neutrality Rules
4. Going along and doing with whatever the big orange man says)
This is a fascinating topic. My wife is a retired federal attorney, and she has taught me a lot about Chevron Deference, but I don't think this is a good topic for this forum. If you want to discuss it, send me a PM.
Understood. I realize I did veer off topic quite a bit when I was writing my post. I've lived inside the Beltway most of my life so I may be more political than members here.
As I've said, I find your posts (along with a few others here) here to be very intelligent and I thoroughly have gained much knowledge and perspective from my readings.
Thank you...maybe I'll take your offer for a private chat in the near future but for today, let's just enjoy our weekend
I'll say one thing about Lizzy, she never fails to entertain. Now she's taking aim at Elon Musk again. So, here's a guy who led the rise of Tesla to become the most valuable automaker in the world, and founded the creation of the most advanced space-related company in the US, Space-X, which is still private but valued at over $200B (many billions more than Qualcomm or Cisco), and Lizzy is quibbling with him in her role in the US Senate, over the diversion of some Nvidia chips. Maybe she owns Tesla stock, and is miffed?
www.foxbusiness.com
...this is a rhetorical question and I'm just venting for what I see (in my opinion) as travesties of justice.
