IMO the closest analogue for Nvidia now is Cisco during the dot-com boom. Cisco sold the physical infrastructure required for Internet companies to operate. Investors all bought in because they figured it was a safe bet. Individual companies may come and go, but if the Internet keeps growing, companies will always need to buy networking equipment. Despite the Internet being way bigger than it was in 2000, and Cisco being highly profitable, Cisco's share price has never exceeded the peak it was at during the dot-com boom.

Google may well want to run more of their content through an LLM, but they will not be using Nvidia hardware to do it, they'll be using their TPUs.

Amazon are on their third generation of in-house AI chips and Anthropic will be using those chips to train the next generation of Claude.

In other words, their biggest customers are looking for cheaper alternatives and are already succeeding in finding them.

Google and Amazon still have to buy tons of Nvidia HW to provide in their clouds. No one writes to their custom chips besides internal teams because the software stack doesn't exist.

> Google and Facebook would happily run every piece of user generated content through an LLM if they had enough GPUs. Same with Microsoft and every enterprise document.

.. But how much actual value derives from this?

Youtube could conceivably put multi language subtitles on every video. Potentially even dub them.

But the "real value" would come from making adverts better targeted and more interactive. It's hard to quantity as a person outside of the companies, but the intuition for a positive value is pretty strong.

> Youtube could conceivably put multi language subtitles on every video.

They already do this, it's opt-in.

> But the "real value" would come from making adverts better targeted and more interactive.

Is there any evidence to suggest that a transformer would be better at collaborative filtering than the current deep learning system that was custom engineered and built for this?