upvote
> Governments need to do something against this abuse system that AI amplified here.

Which governments, and what exactly would you want these governments to do? The demand is global. There are no levers a single government can pull to meaningfully influence the global demand without fully committing to an protectionist economic policy, in which case the U.S. doesn't have the facilities to magically pop up world class fabs overnight, and South Korea and Taiwan don't have the market demand that the U.S. generates to justify their investments in making these chips and China lacks the IP to be able to build anything comparable to Nvidia's silicon at the moment.

No one has all the cards and no one controls all the levers.

reply
Governments have sued DRAM companies for price fixing and forming cartels before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing. They can absolutely step in and if there are evidence of price fixing or anti-competitive behaviours, can impose fines. The choice of whether to do that though is political.
reply
Several of these companies almost went under before the AI boom. There isn’t a cartel.
reply
Is there any allegations of price fixing in this case? The demand just skyrocketed. Other than legislation like the defense act in the US I don’t know of any governments that have jurisdiction over these ram makers that mandate companies produce more of a product.

Especially not for consumer goods.

reply
If they're charging one customer $X and another customer $5X for the same chips... there's got to be some law about this.
reply
I missed that this is happening, is it really? I thought it's 5X for everyone
reply
Supposedly OpenAI is paying 2025 prices.
reply
No one has all the cards and no one controls all the levers.

I'm as fanatical a free-market fundamentalist as you'll ever meet, but if someone were to argue that government has a role in preventing bullshit like OpenAI's unilateral 40% attack on the entire DRAM market, backed by nothing but funny money, I would have a hard time coming up with defensible counterarguments.

reply
I don’t really know much about how this stuff works, but I have a feeling we wouldn’t even have to do anything punitive. We might just need to find and close whatever weird loophole allows the folks who are participating in this gold rush to feel confident enough that they’ve externalized their risks to be willing to engage in speculative data center buildout projects on such a grand scale in the first place.
reply
Apple used to do the same thing with TSMC’s newer process nodes, and nobody really complained because people were getting superior products. I happen to like US antitrust enforcement that considers consumer benefit primarily.
reply
Your attempts to insult what they are doing doesn't show they did anything wrong, but it does impeach the validity of your own argument.
reply
Hit dog hollers, sounds like.
reply
That's abuser logic.
reply
The funny thing is, we're mostly in violent agreement, going by your other comments. This is a weird point to disagree on... so weird, in fact, that it's easy to believe you are associated with OpenAI. Hence my follow-up comment.

What Altman did, and the way he did it, was not OK. Unless you believe that humanity's adoption of AI-based intellectual work is best served by concentrating an enormous amount of power in one company at the expense of everyone else, turning the market into a literal zero-sum game. Do you?

reply
How much memory does it take for the consumer market not to be totally screwed?

Can that share of production be allocated to consumers, and the AI fights over the rest?

reply
What abuse? Responding to supply and demand fluctuations isn't abuse, it's the proper operation of the market.
reply
Would if one industry gobbles up an important resource to the point that other consumers lose practical access to it, shouldn't there be limits?
reply
No. The other industries can bid for access to the resource, and under most circumstances, whether they are willing to bid higher tracks importance. Sometimes there are cases where something has significant positive externalities and so people are not willing to bid high enough, and then we can talk about some kind of government intervention (typically a subsidy that attempts to track the value of the externalities) but I don't see that applying here.
reply
deleted
reply
If others are willing to pay more, that a signal that more value is created if the resource goes to them rather than to the more price sensitive customers.
reply
This logic falls apart completely when gamblers allocate one trillion to bidding up the price, denying access to the resource to people who are responsibly spending their own money. The ideal world of the imaginary perfect free market never takes into consideration the messiness of the real world, like the fact that people will spend extreme sums of money irrationally. It can take years for this effect to correct, damaging the market severely in the meantime.

Alternatively, the money invested can be rational because it prices out competitors and establishes a monopoly, after which point the monopolist earns their absurd investment back with complete control of the market. This is also bad.

reply
You can reach any conclusion you want if you assume others are behaving irrationally. But why should I assume they are wrong instead of you being wrong?
reply
This has zero to do with the company that is making the product and all to do with the company buying them.

The problem you have here is hundreds of different companies are doing the "gambling" in a non collusionary manner so it's going to take decades in court to prove it. Are you saying governments should do an authoritarian take over of RAM allotment?

reply
And even if the companies are "gambling" (and what company doesn't do that) it doesn't mean the gambling is irrational.
reply
Where is the additional supply resulting from the sustained increase in demand?
reply
Some are building new fabs, example:

https://news.skhynix.com/en/fab-facility-investment-2026/

It's not an overnight thing obviously.

reply
Check the article we're commenting under
reply
3x? I bought 128GB DDR5 SODIMMs for 300 eur. Now it's 4000 eur.
reply
Damn you were lucky. I bought 96GB DDR5 last year for £600 UKP. They're now retailing for three times that.

Bastards.

reply
[dead]
reply