· 个股论点
所以@michaeljburry 完全错了，因为 $NVDA GPU/ $GOOGL TPU/芯片的“保质期(shelf life)”并非他所声称的那样。但这很微妙，因为“利用率(utilization)可能被夸大以证明资本支出(capex)合理性”这一观点确实有一定道理。 你在这里同意我的观点，即它们仍然有用，但你只是在解释为什么出于必要性仍在继续使用它们。 我说的是GPU和TPU保留了残值(residual value)，并举了5-7年前的例子。 如果7年前的TPU因算力约束仍在运行，它们就仍有用途并保留价值。如果5年前的GPU仍在运行且能以高价转售，它们就保留了残值，因为它们被用于低优先级的推理(inference)并实现了货币化。
So @michaeljburry is completely wrong in the sense that the shelf life of a $NVDA GPU/ $GOOGL TPU/ chips is not what he’s claiming. But it’s nuanced because there’s some truth the idea of utilization might be stretched to justify capex. You’re agreeing with me here in that they’re still useful but you’re just explaining why they’re still used out of necessity. I was saying GPUs and TPUs retained residual value and gave ones from 5-7 years ago as an example. If 7 year old TPUs are still running because of compute constraints, they’re still useful and retain value. If 5 year old GPUs are still running and can be resold at high values, they’re retain residual value because they get monetized for lower prio inference.