Is it really that short? This support matrix shows ROCm 7.2.1 supporting quite old generations of GPUs, going back at least five or six years. I consider longevity important, too, but if they're actively supporting stuff released in 2020 (CDNA), I can't fault them too much. With open drivers on Linux, where all the real AI work is happening, I feel like this is a better longevity story than nvidia...where you're dependent on nvidia for kernel drivers in addition to CUDA.

https://rocm.docs.amd.com/en/latest/compatibility/compatibil...

You missed the note at the top "GPUs listed in the following table support compute workloads (no display information or graphics)". It doesn't mean that all CDNA or RDNA2 cards are supported. That table is very is very misleading it's for enterprise compute cards only - AMD Instinct and AMD Radeon Pro series. For actual consumer GPUs list is much worse https://rocm.docs.amd.com/projects/radeon-ryzen/en/latest/in... , more or less 9000 and select 7000 series. Not even all of the 7000 series.

I think that speaks to them not understanding at the time the opportunity they were missing out on by not shipping a CUDA-like thing to everyone, including consumer tech. The question is what'll it look like in a few years now that they do understand AI is the biggest part of the GPU industry.

I suspect, given AMDs relative openness vs. nvidia, even consumer-level stuff released today will end up with a longer useful life than current nvidia stuff.

I could be wrong, of course. I've taken the gamble...the last nvidia GPU I bought was a 3070 several years ago. Everything recent has been AMD. It's half the price for nearly competitive performance and VRAM. If that bet turns out wrong, I'll just upgrade a little sooner and still probably end up ahead. But, I think/hope openness will win.

Also, nvidia graphics drivers on Linux are a pain in the ass that I didn't want to keep dealing with. I decided it wasn't worth the hassle, even if they're better on some metrics. I've been able to run everything I've tried on an AMD Strix Halo and an old Radeon Pro V620 (not great, but cheap, compared to other 32GB GPUs and still supported by current ROCm).

Pretty sure the correction is wrong, not merely a stylistic choice.

General LLM is what Apple is paying Google for.

I noticed that Apple speech to text has gotten pretty good lately. Is that because they’re paying Google? Not sure I use other AI features from Apple as I have my Siri turned off.

> Is that because they’re paying Google?

No, the Google deal hasn't shipped yet.

Whereas X can be trusted?

Yes? It's the data source, not a third-party. How is this even a question?

There's pedantic, and then there's needlessly pedantic.

xcancel is a valid workaround for X links on Hacker News and is sufficient for original attribution.

X restricts what you can view without logging in. Many folks don't want to log in to X, for obvious reasons. Posting an xcancel link is kinda like folks posting various `archive` URLs to bypass paywalls, work around overloaded servers, etc. That's an extremely common practice here that usually goes without comment.

You can't think of even one reason?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/12/elon-musk...

AI slop.

0 or 1

Technically not in this case, or not effectively. The 0 or 1 correspond to a FP16 scaling factor for each group of 128 bits. The value fluctuates between each group of 128.

Ask your AI system to help you make a website that can handle a few requests per second.

When 63% of market share isn't enough, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

I'm not saying it is or isn't written by an LLM, but, Yegge writes a lot and usually well. It somehow seems unlikely he'd outsource the front page to AI, even if he's a regular user of AI for coding and code docs.

There's a lot of retirement funds tied up in heavily AI-exposed stocks. A crash, which seems inevitable to me, will hit the public pretty hard.