alt Hacker NewsAre they buying them to try and slow down open source models and protect the massive amounts of money they make from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta ect?
It quite obvious that open source models are catching up to closed source models very fast they about 3-4 months behind right now, and yeah they are trained on Nvidia chips, but as the open source models become more usable, and closer to closed source models they will eat into Nvidia profit as these companies aren't spending tens of billion dollars on chips to train and run inference. These are smaller models trained on fewer GPUs and they are performing as good as the pervious OpenAI and Anthropic models.
So obviously open source models are a direct threat to Nvidia, and they only thing open source models struggle at is scaling inference and this is where Groq and Cerberus come into the picture as they provide the fastest inference for open source models that make them even more usable than SOTA models.
Maybe I'm way off on this.
Replies
NVIDIA release some of the best open source models around.
Almost all open source models are trained and mostly run on NVIDIA hardware.
Open source is great for NVIDIA. They want more open source, not less.
Commoditize your complement is business 101.
Yes, you are way off, because Groq doesn't make open source models. Groq makes innovative AI accelerator chips that are significantly faster than Nvidia's.
Nvidia just released their Nemotron models, and in my testing, they are the best performing models on low-end consumer hardware in both terms of speed and accuracy.
>Are they buying them to try and slow down open source models
The opposite, I think.
Why do you think that local models are a direct threat to Nvidia?
Why would Nvidia let a few of their large customers have more leverage by not diversifying to consumers? Openai decided to eat into Nvidia's manufacturing supply by buying DRAM; that's concretely threatening behavior from one of Nvidia's larger customers.
If Groq sells technology that allows for local models to be used better, why would that /not/ be a profit source for Nvidia to incorporate? Nvidia owes a lot of their success on the consumer market. This is a pattern in the history of computer tech development. Intel forgot this. AMD knows this. See where everyone is now.
Besides, there are going to be more Groqs in the future. Is it worth spending ~20B for each of them to continue to choke-hold the consumer market? Nvidia can afford to look further.
It'd be a lot harder to assume good faith if Openai ended up buying Groq. Maybe Nvidia knows this.
I'd say that it's probably not a play against open source, but more trying to remove/change the bottlenecks in the current chip production cycle. Nvidia likely doesn't care who wins, they just want to sell their chips. They literally can't make enough to meet current demand. If they split off the inference business (and now own one of the only purchasable alternatives) they can spin up more production.
That said, it's completely anti-competitive. Nvidia could design a inference chip themselves, but instead the are locking down one of the only real independents. But... Nobody was saying Groq was making any real money. This might just be a rescue mission.
They need to vertically integrate the entire stack or they die. All of the big players are already making plans for their own chips/hardware. They see everyone else competing for the exact same vendor’s chips and need to diversify.
They acquired in order to have an ASICs competitor to Google TPU.
Idk- cheaper inference seems to be a huge industry secret and providing the best inference tech that only works with nvidia seems like a good plan. Makes nvidia the absolute king of compute against AWS/AMD/Intel seems like a no brainer.
How does this work considering the Nemotron models?
Shy of an algo breakthrough, open source isn't going to catch up with SOTA, their main trick for model improvement is distilling the SOTA models. That's why they they have perpetually been "right behind".