Religion is just organized superstition. And all of Christianity is a mental cancer on society.

AMD used Global Foundries when they started this strategy, and technologically they beat intel because of it, despite an inferior production process.
So as I wrote, the strategy is solid.

Intel has been behind since like 2015

This is just stupid, AMD was way behind Intel until the arrival of Ryzen in March 2017, and Epyc came later.
When AMD was later released from the GloFo agreement, they could stave off Intel with better production process from TSMC too.

2015 is probably around the time Intel lost their production process advantage, but they were not way behind yet at that point.

To reach these high core counts (relative to China’s current manufacturing capabilities), Loongson is using a quad-chiplet layout interlinked with its Loongson Coherent Link (LoongLink) technology to achieve a 64-core configuration. LoongLink is Loongson’s equivalent to Intel’s mesh interconnect, Nvidia’s NVLink, and AMD’s Infinity Fabric.

This is the strategy AMD used with their Epyc server chips to take marketshare from Intel in the server market, and it works.
AMD also used it for Threadripper, and AMD has taken the HPC market completely away from Intel.

So this is absolutely an excellent strategy to compensate for being behind on manufacturing process.

The Danish government said on Thursday it would strengthen protection against digital imitations of people’s identities

Good call. 👍

Yes, absolutely hilarious.

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.

Yes, because some grandma is exactly the kind of people I meant. And not her stupid children or friends who might have helped her with a Linux system instead. /s

My guess is you are just butthurt, because you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

I think the difference here is that you can’t quite just put an AI tag on something, and then investors flock to give you money.
The AI companies that are invested in, are mostly companies that actually have something to show. And the biggest investment and benefactor is Nvidia that actually makes loads of money from AI products.

AI is improving at the same rate it always has

This is blatantly false, there’s a reason there is talk of the cold winter of AI, and the long walk in the desert.
The desert walk was at least 2 decades of very little progress despite big investments, the cold winter was another decade without much progress because of disillusionment so nobody wanted to invest in it.
AI has progressed more for the past 10-15 years than it did for 40 years from about the 70’s to about 2010.

For actual AI, nothing has changed.

I assume you mean strong or general AI, and that’s not what we are debating here, because that is not a reality yet.

Something that doesn’t exist obviously can’t burst.

I agree 100%, and yes there are always losers due to competition and failure to compete. Just like some companies are losing money making cars, but cars are obviously not a bubble.
Maybe the most of the hype is over for now among investors, but AFAIK Nvidia who is the biggest supplier of hardware for it, is not seeing a slowdown in demand.
So maybe it’s more a slow down of interest in the media?

Yes I think Facebook and Microsoft may lose money on this, you could call that over investing, but for it to be a bubble that burst, companies need to go down, and people lose money on it.
Otherwise you may be looking for a completely different word which is fad, a period where something is over hyped, but quickly settles down like Fidget Spinners.
.com was a bubble because a lot of people lost a lot of money, so much so that it reverberated through the entirety of financial systems globally. I don’t think we will see a financial bubble burst due to AI, that is more than 1% of that at most.
META is throwing out money like crazy on their “META” project that will never succeed, and they are doing the same with AI, but they will not go bankrupt on it, and AI will almost guaranteed be more successful than the “META” project.
What I mean is that generally more money will be made on AI, than is lost experimenting with it.

I don’t think it will, AI will improve transform and expand in areas of usefulness, so I think we are still in the early days.

But at what point can we agree that it didn’t?
When we finally get FSD for real? When AI helps improve diagnosis and saves lives?
When AI creates new molecules that are better than any chemist could do without AI.

What will it take for people to realize that AI is here to stay? And AI will remain a significant part of our economy.
Some people behave like AI is some sort of .com bubble, but from an economic viewpoint that doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. The investment landscape into AI is completely different from the .com speculation that was completely void of content.

AI is financed by established players that develop and use AI themselves, while .com was venture capital investing in ideas with no purpose.
Tesla may burst, because they try to sell themselves as an AI company, but they are so far behind it’s ridiculous.
I suspect the Tesla bubble may burst in 5-10 years.

When I see stories like this, what annoys me the most, is that people are still dumb enough to use Microsoft, and proprietary software in general.

Well yes and no, The RX 6600 is a 4-5 year old card, and absolutely low end by today’s standards.
I’m not saying that to be arrogant, because I use a 6600 XT myself. And it works OK for me. Because I mostly play retro games.
But if you look at reviews of the 9600 XT, the 6650 XT which is slightly better than 6600, is the bottom of the charts if it’s even included, at typical framerates more than 50% below the 16 GB 9600 XT.
So yes you can get cheaper cards, but the price is higher per FPS. Maybe except for the Intel Arc B580.
You can also get the 9600 XT in a cheaper 8 GB version, but that is STRONGLY warned against, because for some new games, performance fall off a cliff with only 8GB!
So the 8 GB Radeon RX 9600 XT is not even recommended as an entry level card!

But to be honest, I was positively surprised when I saw the 16 GB version is only $380 (USD) here in Denmark. Because that’s actually cheaper than what I paid for the 6600 XT when it came out. Back then that was $450 USD, and by far the best option on cost per fps.

Prices have been crazy, but they are actually somewhat normalizing now.

The numbers are 3 weeks old, but they are still good. 😋

Cards like Radeon 8GB RX 480 and Nvidia 6GB GTX 1060 were around $250 and were excellent lower midrange cards 8 years ago.
A lower midrange card like the Radeon 16GB RX 9060 is around $380. (Based on price today in Denmark)
So an increase of 50% in 8 years. Not nearly as bad as it has been in several periods in between, when for instance the modest RX 580 was above $500 due to mining, and midrange cards were essentially dead.

But the main problem is that a card like the 16GB RX 9060 is basically the entry point today, there are no good value options below that AFAIK.

Edit:
I was informed about the 12GB Intel Arc B580, which is both cheaper and better than the 8GB Radeon RX 9600 XT.
With the RX 9600 XT be SURE you get the 16 GB version.

I am ABSOLUTELY not praising SpaceX, I’m just using them as an example of how scale makes all the difference at least for some of the components. And being able to launch a small rocket is evidence they can launch a big one too.

You are missing the point that size makes a difference. Obviously SpaceX has the technology to do what Honda did, but SpaceX can do ti with a real rocket.
But they can’t do it with the bigger Starship rocket. Scale matters.

Whatever they tested it’s probably proof of that, but such a small rocket and only 300 meters means that a lot of things were not really proven, because scale is a HUGE issue.
Just ask Elon Musk / SpaceX, the Falcon rocket is fine, but Starship is horrible. And the difference is scale.