I'm looking at my Jetson Nano in the corner which is fulfilling its post-retirement role as a paper weight because Nvidia abandoned it in 4 years.
Nvidia Jetson Nano, A SBC for "AI" debuted with already aging custom Ubuntu 18.04 and when 18.04 went EOL, Nvidia abandoned it completely without any further updates to its proprietary jet-pack or drivers and without them all of Machine Learning stack like CUDA, Pytorch etc. became useless.
I'll never buy a SBC from Nvidia unless all the SW support is up-streamed to Linux kernel.
This is a very important point.
In general, Nvidia's relationship with Linux has been... complicated. On the one hand, at least they offer drivers for it. On the other, I have found few more reliable ways to irreparably break a Linux installation than trying to install or upgrade those drivers. They don't seem to prioritize it as a first class citizen, more just tolerate it the bare minimum required to claim it works.
For those unfamiliar with Linus Torvalds' two-word opinion of Nvidia:> Nvidia's relationship with Linux has been... complicated.
Wow. Torvalds' distaste for Nvidia from that, albeit 12 year old, clip leaves little to the imagination. Re: gaming GPUs, Windows is their main OS, but is that the main reason why Huang only mentioned Windows in his CES 2025 keynote? Their gaming chips are a small portion of the company now. But they want to focus dev on Windows??
Nvidia has its own Linux distribution, DGX OS, based on Ubuntu LTS, but installing other Linux distros on machines with Nvidia GPUs is less than ideal.
Now that the majority of their revenue is from data centers instead of Windows gaming PCs, you'd think their relationship with Linux should improve or already has.
Nvidia segments its big iron AI hardware from the consumer/prosumer segment. They do this by forbidding the use of GeForce drivers in datacenters[1]. All that to say, it is possible for the H100 to to have excellent Linux support, while support for the 4090 is awful.
1. https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/nvidia-updates-ge...
They have been making real improvements the last few years. Most of their proprietary driver code is in firmware now, and the kernel driver is open-source[1] (the userland-side is still closed though).
They've also significantly improved support for wayland and stopped trying to force eglstreams on the community. Wayland+nvidia works quite well now, especially after they added explicit sync support.
Because red hat announced that next RHEl is going tone Wayland only, that why they fixed all that you said, they don't care about users, only servers
>complicated
... as in remember the time a ransomware hacker outfit demanded they release the drivers or else .....
https://www.webpronews.com/open-source-drivers-or-else-nvidi...
It's possible. I haven't had a system completely destroyed by Nvidia in the last few years, but I've been assuming that's because I've gotten in the habit of just not touching it once I get it working...
I have been having a fine time with a 3080 on recent Arch, FWIW.
HDR support is still painful, but that seems to be a Linux problem, not specific to Nvidia.
I update drivers regularly. I've only had one display failure and was solved by a simple rollback. To be a bit fair (:/) it was specifically a combination of new beta driver and a newer kernel. It's definitely improved a ton since 10 years ago I just would not update them except very carefully.
I've bricked multiple systems just running apt install on the Nvidia drivers. I have no idea how, but I run the installation, everything works fine, and then when I reboot I can't even boot.
That was years ago, but it happened multiple times and I've been very cautious ever since.
Interesting. I've never had that issue (~15 years experience) but I always had CPUs with graphics drivers. Do you think that might be it? The danger zone was always at `startx` and never before. (I still buy CPUs with graphics drivers because I think it is always good to have a fallback and hey, sometimes I want to sacrifice graphics for GPU compute :)
I got similar experience. I really prefer switch CUDA version with whole PC machine. What is more, the speed and memory of hardware improves quickly in time as well.
The Digits device runs the same nVidia DGX OS (nVidia custom Ubuntu distro) that they run on their cloud infra.
I've had a similar experience, my Xavier NX stopped working after the last update and now it's just collecting dust. To be honest, I've found the Nvidia SBC to be more of a hassle than it's worth.
Xavier AGX owner here to report the same.
My Jetson TX2 developer kit didn't stop working, but it's on a very out of date Linux distribution.
Maybe if Nvidia makes it to four trillion in market cap they'll have enough spare change to keep these older boards properly supported, or at least upstream all the needed support.
Back in 2018 I've been involved in a product development based on TX2. I had to untangle the entire nasty mess of Bash and Python spaghetti that is JetPack SDK to get everything sensibly integrated into our custom firmware build system and workflow (no, copying your application files over prebaked rootfs on a running board is absolutely NOT how it's normally done). You basically need a few deb packages with nvidia libs for your userspace, and swipe a few binaries from Jetpack that have to be run with like 20 undocumented arguments in right order to do the rest (image assembly, flashing, signing, secure boot stuff, etc), the rest of the system could be anything. Right when I was finished, a 3rd party Yocto layer implementing essentially the same stuff that I came up with, and the world could finally forget about horrors of JetPack for good. I also heard that it has somewhat improved later on, but I have not touch any NVidia SoCs since (due to both trauma and moving to a different field).
Are you aware that mainline linux runs on these Jetson devices? It's a bit of annoying work, but you can be running ArchLinuxARM.
https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/pull/1580
Edit: It's been a while since I did this, but I had to manually build the kernel, overwrite a dtb file maybe (and Linux_for_Tegra/bootloader/l4t_initrd.img) and run something like this (for xavier)
sudo ./flash.sh -N 128.30.84.100:/srv/arch -K /home/aeden/out/Image -d /home/aeden/out/tegra194-p2972-0000.dtb jetson-xavier eth0
How close does any of that get a person to having Ubuntu 24.04 running on their board?
(I guess we can put aside the issue of Nvidia's closed source graphics drivers for the moment)
You could install Ubuntu 24.04 using debootstrap. That would just get you the user space, though, you'd still have to build your own kernel image.
Isn't the Jetson line more of an embedded line and not a end-user desktop? Why would you run Ubuntu?
Jetson are embedded devices that run ubuntu. Ubuntu is the OS it ships with.
The Jetson TX2 developer kit makes a very nice developer machine - an ARM64 machine with good graphics acceleration, CUDA, etc.
In any case, Ubuntu is what it comes with.
If you spent enough time and energy on it.. I'm fairly confident you could get the newest Ubuntu running. You'd have to build your own kernel, manually generate the initramfs, figure out how to and then flash it. You'd probably run into stupid little problems like the partition table the flash script makes doesn't allocate enough space for the kernel you've built.. I'm sure there would be hiccups, at the very least, but everything's out there to do it.
Wait, my AGX is still working, but I have kept it offline and away from updates. Do the updates kill it? Or is it a case of not supporting newer pytorch or something else you need?
Xavier AGX is awesome for running ESXi aarch64 edition, including aarch64 Windows vms
The Orin series and later use UEFI and you can apparently run upstream, non-GPU enabled kernels on them. There's a user guide page documenting it. So I think it's gotten a lot better, but it's sort of moot because the non-GPU thing is because the JetPack Linux fork has a specific 'nvgpu' driver used for Tegra devices that hasn't been unforked from that tree. So, you can buy better alternatives unless you're explicitly doing the robotics+AI inference edge stuff.
But the impression I get from this device is that it's closer in spirit to the Grace Hopper/datacenter designs than it is the Tegra designs, due to both the naming, design (DGX style) and the software (DGX OS?) which goes on their workstation/server designs. They are also UEFI, and in those scenarios, you can (I believe?) use the upstream Linux kernel with the open source nvidia driver using whatever distro you like. In that case, this would be a much more "familiar" machine with a much more ordinary Linux experience. But who knows. Maybe GH200/GB200 need custom patches, too.
Time will tell, but if this is a good GPU paired with a good ARM Cortex design, and it works more like a traditional Linux box than the Jeton series, it may be a great local AI inference machine.
AGX also has UEFI firmware which allows you to install ESXi. Then you can install any generic EFI arm64 iso in a VM with no problems, including windows.
It runs their dgx os and Jensen specifically said it would be a full part if their hw stack
If this is DGX OS, then yes, this is what you’ll find installed on their 4-cards workstations.
This is more like a micro-DGX then, for $3k.
And unless there is some expanded maintenance going on, 22.04 is EOL in 2 years. In my experience, vendors are not as on top of security patches as upstream. We will see, but given NVIDIA's closed ecosystem, I don't have high hopes that this will be supported long term.
Is there any recent, powerful SBC with fully upstream kernel support?
I can only think of raspberry pi...
rk3588 is pretty close, I believe it's usable today, just missing a few corner cases with HDMI or some such. I believe that last patches are either pending or already applied to an RC.
Radha but that’s n100 aka x64
The odroid H series. But that packs a x86 cpu.
If its stack still works, you might be able to sell or donate it to a student experimenting. They can still learn quite a few things with it. Maybe even use it for something.
Using outdated tensorflow (v1 from 2018) or outdated PyTorch makes learning harder than it need to be, considering most resources online use much newer versions of the frameworks. If you're learning the fundamentals and working from first principle and creating the building blocks yourself, then it adds to the experience. However, most most people just want to build different types of nets, and it's hard to do when the code won't work for you.
If you're expecting this device to stay relevant for 4 years you are not the target demographic.
Compute is evolving way too rapidly to be setting-and-forgetting anything at the moment.
Today I'm using 2x 3090's which are over 4 years old at this point and still very usable. To get 48gb vram I would need 3x 5070ti - still over $2k.
In 4 years, you'll be able to combine 2 of these to get 256gb unified memory. I expect that to have many uses and still be in a favorable form factor and price.
Eh? By all indications compute is now evolving SLOWER than ever. Moore's Law is dead, Dennard scaling is over, the latest fab nodes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
This isn't the 80s when compute doubled every 9 months, mostly on clock scaling.
Indeed, generational improvements are at an all time low. Most of the "revolutionary" AI and/or GPU improvements are less precision (fp32 -> fp16 -> fp8 -> fp4) or adding ever more fake pixels, fake frames, and now in the most recent iteration multiple fake frames per computed frame.
I believe Nvidia has some published numbers for the 5000 series that showed DLSS off performance, which allowed a fair comparison to the previous generation, on the order of 25%, then removed it.
Thankfully the 3rd party benchmarks that use the same settings on old and new hardware should be out soon.
Fab node size is not the only factor in performance. Physical limits were reached, and we're pulling back from the extremely small stuff for the time being. That is the evolutionary part.
Revolutionary developments are: multi-layer wafer bonding, chiplets (collections of interconnected wafers) and backside power delivery. We don't need the transistors to keep getting physically smaller, we need more of them, and at increased efficiency, and that's exactly what's happening.
All that comes with linear increases of heat, and exponential difficulty of heat dissipation (square-cube law).
There is still progress being made in hardware, but for most critical components it's looking far more logarithmic now as we're approaching the physical material limits.
I feel this is bigger than the 5x series GPUs. Given the craze around AI/LLMs, this can also potentially eat into Apple’s slice of the enthusiast AI dev segment once the M4 Max/Ultra Mac minis are released. I sure wished I held some Nvidia stocks, they seem to be doing everything right in the last few years!
This is something every company should make sure they have: an onboarding path.
Xeon Phi failed for a number of reasons, but one where it didn't need to fail was availability of software optimised for it. Now we have Xeons and EPYCs, and MI300C's with lots of efficient cores, but we could have been writing software tailored for those for 10 years now. Extracting performance from them would be a solved problem at this point. The same applies for Itanium - the very first thing Intel should have made sure it had was good Linux support. They could have it before the first silicon was released. Itaium was well supported for a while, but it's long dead by now.
Similarly, Sun has failed with SPARC, which also didn't have an easy onboarding path after they gave up on workstations. They did some things right: OpenSolaris ensured the OS remained relevant (still is, even if a bit niche), and looking the other way for x86 Solaris helps people to learn and train on it. Oracle cloud could, at least, offer it on cloud instances. Would be nice.
Now we see IBM doing the same - there is no reasonable entry level POWER machine that can compete in performance with a workstation-class x86. There is a small half-rack machine that can be mounted on a deskside case, and that's it. I don't know of any company that's planning to deploy new systems on AIX (much less IBMi, which is also POWER), or even for Linux on POWER, because it's just too easy to build it on other, competing platforms. You can get AIX, IBMi and even IBMz cloud instances from IBM cloud, but it's not easy (and I never found a "from-zero-to-ssh-or-5250-or-3270" tutorial for them). I wonder if it's even possible. You can get Linux on Z instances, but there doesn't seem to be a way to get Linux on POWER. At least not from them (several HPC research labs still offer those).
1000% all these ai hardware companies will fail if they don't have this. You must have a cheap way to experiment and develop. Even if you want to only sell a $30000 datacenter card you still need a very low cost way to play.
Sad to see big companies like intel and amd don't understand this but they've never come to terms with the fact that software killed the hardware star
Isn’t the cloud GPU market covering this? I can run a model for $2/hr, or get a 8xH100 if I need to play with something bigger.
People tend to limit their usage when it's time-billed. You need some sort of desktop computer anyway, so, if you spend the 3K this one costs, you have unlimited time of Nvidia cloud software. When you need to run on bigger metal, then you pay $2/hour.
3k is still very steep for anyone not on a silicon valley like salary.
Yes. Most people make do with a generic desktop and an Nvidia GPU. What makes this machine attractive is the beefy GPU and the full Nvidia support for the whole AI stack.
I have the skills to write efficient CUDA kernels, but $2/hr is 10% of my salary, so no way I'm renting any H100s. The electricity price for my computer is already painful enough as is. I am sure there are many eastern European developers who are more skilled and get paid even less. This is a huge waste of resources all due to NVIDIA's artificial market segmentation. Or maybe I am just cranky because I want more VRAM for cheap.
This has 128GB of unified memory. A similarly configured Mac Studio costs almost twice as much, and I'm not sure the GPU is on the same league (software support wise, it isn't, but that's fixable).
A real shame it's not running mainline Linux - I don't like their distro based on Ubuntu LTS.
$4,799 for an M2 Ultra with 128GB of RAM, so not quite twice as much. I'm not sure what the benchmark comparison would be. $5,799 if you want an extra 16 GPU cores (60 vs 76).
We'll need to look into benchmarks when the numbers come out. Software support is also important, and a Mac will not help you that much if you are targeting CUDA.
I have to agree the desktop experience of the Mac is great, on par with the best Linuxes out there.
A lot of models are optimized for metal already, especially lamma, deepseek, and qwen. You are still taking a hit but there wasn't an alternative solution for getting that much vram in a less than $5k before this NVIDIA project came out. Will definitely look at it closely if it isn't just vaporware.
They cant walk back now without some major backlash.
The one thing I wonder is noise. That box is awfully small for the amount of compute it packs, and high-end Mac Studios are 50% heatsink. There isn’t much space in this box for a silent fan.
> Sad to see big companies like intel and amd don't understand this
And it's not like they were never bitten (Intel has) by this before.
Well, Intel management is very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Intel does have https://www.clearlinux.org/
At least they don’t suffer from a lack of onboarding paths for x86, and it seems they are doing a nice job with their dGPUs.
Still unforgivable that their new CPUs hit the market without excellent Linux support.
It really mystifies me that Intel AMD and other hardware companies obviously Nvidia in this case Don't either have a consortium or each have their own in-house Linux distribution with excellent support.
Windows has always been a barrier to hardware feature adoption to Intel. You had to wait 2 to 3 years, sometimes longer, for Windows to get around us providing hardware support.
Any OS optimizations in Windows you had to go through Microsoft. So say you added some instructions custom silicon or whatever to speed up Enterprise databases, provide high-speed networking that needed some special kernel features, etc, there was always Microsoft being in the way.
Not just in the drag the feet communication. Getting the tech people a line problem.
Microsoft will look at every single change. It did as to whether or not it would challenge their Monopoly whether or not it was in their business interest whether or not it kept you as the hardware and a subservient role.
From the consumer perspective, it seems that MSFT has provided scheduler changes fairly rapidly for CPU changes, like X3D, P/e cores, etc. At least within a couple of months, if not at release.
Amd/Intel work directly with Microsoft for shipping new silicon that would otherwise require it.
> From the consumer perspective, it seems that MSFT has provided scheduler changes fairly rapidly
Now they have some competition. This is relatively new, and Satya Nadella reshaped the company because of that.
Raptor Computing provides POWER9 workstations. They're not cheap, still use last-gen hardware (DDR4/PCIe 4 ... and POWER9 itself) but they're out there.
It kind of defeats the purpose of an onboarding platform if it’s more expensive than the one you think of moving away from.
IBM should see some entry-level products as loss leaders.
They're not offering POWER10 either because IBM closed the firmware again. Stupid move.
Raptor's value proposition is a 100% free and open platform, from the firmware and up, but, if they were willing to compromise on that, they'd be able to launch a POWER10 box.
Not sure it'd competitive in price with other workstation class machines. I don't know how expensive IBM's S1012 desk side is, but with only 64 threads, it'd be a meh workstation.
There were Phi cards, but they were pricey and power hungry (at the time, now current GPU cards probably meet or exceed the Phi card's power consumption) for plugging into your home PC. A few years back there was a big fire sale on Phi cards - you could pick one up for like $200. But by then nobody cared.
Imagine if they were sold at cost in the beginning. Also, think about having one as the only CPU rather than a card.
The developers they are referring to aren’t just enthusiasts; they are also developers who were purchasing SuperMicro and Lambda PCs to develop models for their employers. Many enterprises will buy these for local development because it frees up the highly expensive enterprise-level chip for commercial use.
This is a genius move. I am more baffled by the insane form factor that can pack this much power inside a Mac Mini-esque body. For just $6000, two of these can run 400B+ models locally. That is absolutely bonkers. Imagine running ChatGPT on your desktop. You couldn’t dream about this stuff even 1 year ago. What a time to be alive!
The 1 PetaFLOP spec and 200GB model capacity specs are for FP4 (4-bit floating point), which means inference not training/development. It's still be a decent personal development machine, but not for that size of model.
This looks like a bigger brother of Orin AGX, which has 64GB of RAM and runs smaller LLMs. The question will be power and performance vs 5090. We know price is 1.5x
How does it run 400B models across two? I didn’t see that in the article
> Nvidia says that two Project Digits machines can be linked together to run up to 405-billion-parameter models, if a job calls for it. Project Digits can deliver a standalone experience, as alluded to earlier, or connect to a primary Windows or Mac PC.
Point to point ConnectX connection (RDMA with GPUDirect)
Not sure exactly, but they mentioned linking to together with ConnectX, which could be ethernet or IB. No idea on the speed though.
I think the enthusiast side of things is a negligible part of the market.
That said, enthusiasts do help drive a lot of the improvements to the tech stack so if they start using this, it’ll entrench NVIDIA even more.
I’m not so sure it’s negligible. My anecdotal experience is that since Apple Silicon chips were found to be “ok” enough to run inference with MLX, more non-technical people in my circle have asked me how they can run LLMs on their macs.
Surely a smaller market than gamers or datacenters for sure.
It's annoying I do LLMs for work and have a bit of an interest in them and doing stuff with GANS etc.
I have a bit of an interest in games too.
If I could get one platform for both, I could justify 2k maybe a bit more.
I can't justify that for just one half: running games on Mac, right now via Linux: no thanks.
And on the PC side, nvidia consumer cards only go to 24gb which is a bit limiting for LLMs, while being very expensive - I only play games every few months.
The new $2k card from Nvidia will be 32GB but your point stands. AMD is planning a unified chiplet based GPU architecture (AI/data center/workstation/gaming) called UDNA, which might alleviate some of these issues. It's been delayed and delayed though - hence the lackluster GPU offerings from team Red this cycle - so I haven't been getting my hopes up.
Maybe (LP)CAMM2 memory will make model usage just cheap enough that I can have a hosting server for it and do my usual midrange gaming GPU thing before then.
Grace + Hopper, Grace + blackwell, and discussed GB10 are much like the currently shipping AMD MI300A.
I do hope that a AMD Strix Halo ships with 2 LPCAMM2 slots for a total width of 256 bits.
Unified architecture is still on track for 2026-ish.
32gb as of last night :)
- [deleted]
I mean negligible to their bottom line. There may be tons of units bought or not, but the margin on a single datacenter system would buy tens of these.
It’s purely an ecosystem play imho. It benefits the kind of people who will go on to make potentially cool things and will stay loyal.
>It’s purely an ecosystem play imho. It benefits the kind of people who will go on to make potentially cool things and will stay loyal.
100%
The people who prototype on a 3k workstation will also be the people who decide how to architect for a 3k GPU buildout for model training.
> It’s purely an ecosystem play imho. It benefits the kind of people who will go on to make potentially cool things and will stay loyal.
It will be massive for research labs. Most academics have to jump through a lot of hoops to get to play with not just CUDA, but also GPUDirect/RDMA/Infiniband etc. If you get older/donated hardware, you may have a large cluster but not newer features.
Academic minimal-bureaucracy purchasing card limit is about $4k, so pricing is convenient*2.
Devalapers developers developers - balmer monkey dance - the key to be entrenched is the platform ecosystem.
Also why aws is giving trainium credits for free
Yes, but people already had their Macs for others reasons.
No one goes to an Apple store thinking "I'll get a laptop to do AI inference".
They have, because until now Apple Silicon was the only practical way for many to work with larger models at home because they can be configured with 64-192GB of unified memory. Even the laptops can be configured with up to 128GB of unified memory.
Performance is not amazing (roughly 4060 level, I think?) but in many ways it was the only game in town unless you were willing and able to build a multi-3090/4090 rig.
I would bet that people running LLMs on their Macs, today, is <0.1% of their user base.
People buying Macs for LLMs—sure I agree.
Since the current MacOS comes built in with small LLMs, that number might be closer to 50% not 0.1%.
I'm not arguing whether or not Macs are capable of doing it, but whether is a material force that drives people to buy Macs because of it; it's not.
Higher than that buying the top end machines though, which are very high margin
All macs? Yes. But of 192GB mac configs? Probably >50%
I'm currently wondering how likely it is I'll get into deeper LLM usage, and therefore how much Apple Silicon I need (because I'm addicted to macOS). So I'm some way closer to your steel man than you'd expect. But I'm probably a niche within a niche.
Tons of people do, my next machine will likely be a Mac for 60% this reason and 40% Windows being so user hostile now.
my $5k m3 max 128gb disagrees
Doubt it, a year ago useful local LLMs on a Mac (via something like ollama) was barely taking off.
If what you say it's true you were among the first 100 people on the planet who were doing this; which btw, further supports my argument on how extremely rare is that use case for Mac users.
No, I got a MacBook Pro 14”with M2 Max and 64GB for LLMs, and that was two generations back.
People were running llama.cpp on Mac laptops in March 2023 and Llama2 was released in July 2023. People were buying Macs to run LLMs months before M3 machines became available in November 2023.
You could have said the same about gamers buying expensive hardware in the 00's. It's what made Nvidia big.
I keep thinking about stocks that have 100xd, and most seemed like obscure names to me as a layman. But man, Nvidia was a household name to anyone that ever played any game. And still so many of us never bothered buying the stock
Incredible fumble for me personally as an investor
Unless you predicted AI and Crypto then it was just really good, not 100x. It 20x from 2005-2020 but ~500x from 2005-2025
And if you truly did predict that Nvidia would own those markets and those markets would be massive, you could have also bought Amazon, Google or heck even Bitcoin. Anything you touched in tech really would have made you a millionaire really.
Survivors bias though. It's hard to name all the companies that failed in the dot com bust, but even among the ones that made it through, because they're not around any more, they're harder to remember than the winners. But MCI, Palm, RIM, Nortel, Compaq, Pets.com, Webvan all failed and went to zero. There's an uncountable number of ICOs and NFTs that ended up nowhere. SVB isn't exactly an tech stock but they were strongly connected to it and they failed.
It is interesting to think about crypto as a stairstep that Nvidia used to get to its current position in AI. It wasn't games > ai, but games > crypto > ai.
- [deleted]
Nvidia joined S&P500 in 2001 so if you've been doing passive index fund investing, you probably got a little bit of it in your funds. So there was some upside to it.
There's a lot more gamers than people wanting to play with LLms at home.
There's a titanic market with people wanting some uncensored local LLM/image/video generation model. This market extremely overlaps with gamers today, but will grow exponentially every year.
How big is that market you claim? Local LLM image generation already exists out off the box on latest Samsung flagship phones and it's mostly a Gimmick that gets old pretty quickly. Hardly comparable to gaming in terms of market size and profitablity.
Plus, YouTube and the Google images is already full of AI generated slop and people are already tired of it. "AI fatigue" amongst majority of general consumers is a documented thing. Gaming fatigues is not.
> Gaming fatigues is not.
It is. You may know it as the "I prefer to play board games (and feel smugly superior about it) because they're ${more social, require imagination, $whatever}" crowd.
The market heavily disagrees with you.
"The global gaming market size was valued at approximately USD 221.24 billion in 2024. It is forecasted to reach USD 424.23 billion by 2033, growing at a CAGR of around 6.50% during the forecast period (2025-2033)"
Farmville style games underwent similar explosive estimates of growth, up until they collapsed.
Much of the growth in gaming of late has come from exploitive dark patterns, and those dark patterns eventually stop working because users become immune to them.
>Farmville style games underwent similar explosive estimates of growth, up until they collapsed.
They did not collapse, they moved to smartphones. The "free"-to-play gacha portion of the gaming market is so successful it is most of the market. "Live service" games are literally traditional game makers trying to grab a tiny slice of that market, because it's infinitely more profitable than making actual games.
>those dark patterns eventually stop working because users become immune to them.
Really? Slot machines have been around for generations and have not become any less effective. Gambling of all forms has relied on the exact same physiological response for millennia. None of this is going away without legislation.
> Slot machines have been around for generations and have not become any less effective.
Slot machines are not a growth market. The majority of people wised to them literal generations ago, although enough people remain susceptible to maintain a handful of city economies.
> They did not collapse, they moved to smartphones
Agreed, but the dark patterns being used are different. The previous dark patterns became ineffective. The level of sophistication of psychological trickery in modern f2p games is far beyond anything Farmville ever attempted.
The rise of live service games also does not bode well for infinite growth in the industry as there's only so many hours to go around each day for playing games and even the evilest of player manipulation techniques can only squeeze so much blood from a stone.
The industry is already seeing the failure of new live service games to launch, possibly analogous to what happened in the MMO market when there was a rush of releases after WoW. With the exception of addicts, most people can only spend so many hours a day playing games.
I think he implied AI generated porn. Perhaps also other kind of images that are at odds with morality and/or the law. I'm not sure but probably Samsung phones don't let you do that.
I'm sure a lot of people see "uncensored" and think "porn" but there's a lot of stuff that e.g. Dall-E won't let you do.
Suppose you're a content creator and you need an image of a real person or something copyrighted like a lot of sports logos for your latest YouTube video's thumbnail. That kind of thing.
I'm not getting into how good or bad that is; I'm just saying I think it's a pretty common use case.
Apart from the uncensored bit, I'm in this small market.
Do I buy a Macbook with silly amount of RAM when I only want to mess with images occasionally.
Do I get a big Nvidia card, topping out at 24gb - still small for some LLMs, but I could occasionally play games using it at least.
>There's a titanic market
Titanic - so about to hit an iceberg and sink?
> There's a titanic market with people wanting some uncensored local LLM/image/video generation model.
No. There's already too much porn on the internet, and AI porn is cringe and will get old very fast.
AI porn is currently cringe, just like Eliza for conversations was cringe.
The cutting edge will advance, and convincing bespoke porn of people's crushes/coworkers/bosses/enemies/toddlers will become a thing. With all the mayhem that results.
It will always be cringe due to how so-called "AI" works. Since it's fundamentally just log-likelihood optimization under the hood, it will always be a statistically most average image. Which means it will always have that characteristic "plastic" and overdone look.
The current state of the art in AI image generation was unimaginable a few years back. The idea that it'll stay as-is for the next century seems... silly.
If you're talking about some sort of non-existent sci-fi future "AI" that isn't just log-likelihood optimization, then most likely such a fantastical thing wouldn't be using NVidia's GPU with CUDA.
This hardware is only good for current-generation "AI".
I think there are a lot of non-porn uses. I see a lot of YouTube thumbnails that seem AI generated, but feature copyrighted stuff.
(example: a thumbnail for a YT video about a video game, featuring AI-generated art based on that game. because copyright reasons, in my very limited experience Dall-E won't let you do that)
I agree that AI porn doesn't seem a real market driver. With 8 billion people on Earth I know it has its fans I guess, but people barely pay for porn in the first place so I reallllly dunno how many people are paying for AI porn either directly or indirectly.
It's unclear to me if AI generated video will ever really cross the "uncanny valley." Of course, people betting against AI have lost those bets again and again but I don't know.
> No. There's already too much porn on the internet, and AI porn is cringe and will get old very fast.
I needed an uncensored model in order to, guess what, make an AI draw my niece snowboarding down a waterfall. All the online services refuse on basis that the picture contains -- oh horrors -- a child.
"Uncensored" absolutely does not imply NSFW.
Yeah, and there's that story about "private window" mode in browsers because you were shopping for birthday gifts that one time. You know what I mean though.
I really don't. Censored models are so censored they're practically useless for anything but landscapes. Half of them refuse to put humans in the pictures at all.
I think scams will create a far more demand. Spear Phishing targets by creating persistent elaborate online environments is going to be big.