[md_]

I'm confused. The article from September 1 linked to here is strangely future-tense ("But the firm’s latest investment in 10,000 of the company’s H100 GPUs dwarfs the power of this supercomputer....This AI cluster, worth more than $300 million, will offer a peak performance...").

It links to a Tom's Hardware article (https://www.tomshardware.com/news/teslas-dollar300-million-a...) from August 28 that says "Tesla is about to flip the switch on its new AI cluster, featuring 10,000 Nvidia H100 compute GPUs") and says "Tesla is set to launch its highly-anticipated supercomputer on Monday..." (presumably the September 1 event).

So, like, does Tesla actually have 10k H100s? Or do they have an order for 10k H100s? Or an intention to buy 10k H100s?

Is the sole source for these articles this (https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1696011140508045660) random Twitter post by some guy who runs an online clothing company?

I don't mean to snipe, but this article doesn't seem to rise to the extremely high editorial standards of such tech-press luminaries as "TechRadar" and "Hacker News".

[xedeon]

> high editorial standards of such tech-press luminaries as "TechRadar" and "Hacker News".

If you would’ve just scrolled just a little bit on that Twitter post that you linked. You would’ve seen these:

https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1696012091964915744

https://x.com/tim_zaman/status/1695488119729238147

Also, just FYI. Sawyer posts most of the Tesla and SpaceX breaking news on Twitter before major outlets even write their articles.

For example, here’s one just 12mins ago as confirmed by Elon: https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1728092021628313777

A “random Twitter post by some guy who runs an online clothing company” is definitely a wrong assumption.

https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1709019899442479162

[dpkirchner]

I think you only see the additional tweets you're talking about if you're for whatever reason actually signed in to Twitter.

[md_]

> If you would’ve just scrolled just a little bit on that Twitter post that you linked. You would’ve seen these:

I don't see those when I scroll. I see

"Buckle up everyone, the acceleration of progress is about to get nutty!"

and this is the end of the post?

Maybe I'm misusing this thing?

> https://x.com/tim_zaman/status/1695488119729238147

So another guy who claims to be a Tesla employee says (again, strangely future tense) that this is true? I mean, I am willing to believe--'cause he paid $20 for a blue check--that he probably is a Tesla employee.

But the use of future tense is a bit weird, right? And the lack of any followup?

> A “random Twitter post by some guy who runs an online clothing company” is definitely a wrong assumption.

I guess I'm old. Back in my day, "evidence" wasn't some random dude's online posts. But I know things have changed. ;)

==

More seriously:

https://www.hpcwire.com/2023/08/17/nvidia-h100-are-550000-gp... says Nvidia is producing 550k H100s in 2023. And there's obviously a significant lead-time requirement.

So, yes, I can sorta imagine Tesla pre-ordered 2% of global supply of H100s early in 2023 and was bragging about it at the end of August just 'cause.

But I can also imagine this is smoke and mirrors, and they have, like, a handful with the rest on backorder, and we haven't heard more about it 'cause Tesla doesn't have marketing people, it just has wahoos who post things on Twitter.

Either way, I guess?

[xedeon]

> Maybe I'm misusing this thing?

That seems to be the case here. ;)

> So another guy who claims to be a Tesla employee says (again, strangely future tense) that this is true? I mean, I am willing to believe--'cause he paid $20 for a blue check--that he probably is a Tesla employee.

Another case of misuse? Here’s a tip for you. When you see a company logo/icon on someone's Twitter/X profile. That means they are verified to be affiliated with that org.

“Accounts affiliated with the organization will receive an affiliate badge on their profile with the organization’s logo, and will be featured on the organization’s Twitter profile, indicating their affiliation. “

https://twitter.com/verified/status/1641596848921276417

Instead of inferring that Tim Zaman is a random Twitter user who paid $20 for a blue check. Why not just Google his name? ;)

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Tim+Zaman

> I guess I'm old. Back in my day, "evidence" wasn't some random dude's online posts. But I know things have changed. ;)

I linked a video where CNBC was interviewing Sawyer but it seems that you didn’t even bother to check it.

This seems to be the problem today. People refuse to do the bare minimum (which is not even much) required for critical thinking. Instead of verifying information, people tend to uncritically repeat inaccurate assumptions, even when provided with additional information in good faith.

[md_]

Sure. I’m being a bit snarky. But I think the point stands that a single tweet from an employee saying “we’re about to do $thing” doesn’t exactly mean that, two months later, we should be reading a story whose sole origin is that tweet as evidence that $thing actually ended up happening.

Like, whats the actual news story here?

Totally agree there’s a lack of critical thinking at play.

Also, I think the X.com links only work if you have a login or something, fyi.