Alibaba Cloud Says It Cut Nvidia AI GPU Use by 82% with New Pooling System
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
tomshardware.comTechstoryHigh profile
calmmixed
Debate
70/100
Artificial IntelligenceGPU OptimizationCloud Computing
Key topics
Artificial Intelligence
GPU Optimization
Cloud Computing
Alibaba Cloud claims to have reduced Nvidia GPU usage by 82% with a new pooling system, sparking discussion on the implications for AI development and the potential for similar optimizations.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
28m
Peak period
67
0-6h
Avg / period
22.9
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 20, 2025 at 8:31 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 20, 2025 at 8:59 AM EDT
28m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
67 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 22, 2025 at 12:41 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45643163Type: storyLast synced: 11/22/2025, 11:00:32 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The streets are flooded with cheap Chinese cars and I see more BYD than American cars. If the car wasn't made in Japan or Korea which probably account for most of the cars, it was likely made in China. Moreover, I haven't been in countries with the closest ties to China.
This isn't surprising in any way, American "cars" (quotes because the vast majority of what American manufacturers pump out isn't cars, it's trucks) haven't been competitive in decades. The only globally competitive vehicles were developed in Europe by GM Europe (Opel, since sold to PSA now Stellantis) or Ford Europe (which axed all models bar the Puma). The rest is too big, expensive and inefficient from the vast majority of uses. Tariffs and good marketing keep American car manufacturers in business in the US, but those don't work in most other markets.
The more appropriate comparison is with European automakers such as VW Group, Stellantis (Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, Ram), Renault. And there too BYD is winning as well in mosy countries, but at least there's a comparison possible.
It's like trying to level your MMORPG character to 100 by only farming in lvl 30-40 mob areas. It's really not worth it and mostly forced.
Take Renault for example, their Renault 5 and 4 EVs are good looking, not luxury but definitely premium, and the 5 sedan starts at 30k€; the 4 crossover starts at 29k€. This is before a 5k€ government subsidy. Their boring, fewer bells and whistles, low cost model, the Dacia Spring, starts at 17k€. The Renault 5 and 4 are made almost entirely in France, while the Dacia is made in Romania - a lower cost country, but still an EU member state.
The comparable in size and autonomy BYD Dolphin starts at 20k€. Both for cheapness and quality/design, Renault are competitive.
They really nailed the modern-with-subtle-calls-to-retro look.
Bit of an absurd car, but the modern (non-turbo) 5's slight bumps over the rear wheels are such a good callback to the Turbo (the original Renault 5 were basically all flat).
Really fine design stuff IMO.
Japan eventually stopped that role and their products improved greatly.
go to 2024, western labs were crushing it.
it's now 2025, and from china, we have deepseek, qwen, kimi, glm, ernie and many more capable models keeping up with western labs. there are actually now more chinese labs releasing sota models than western labs.
does it really feel like they have a chance to recover all the expenses in the future?
crypto grifters pivoted to ai and, same as last time, normal people don’t want to have anything to do with them.
considering the amount of money burned on this garbage, i think we can at least declare a looser.
They are lauded for the ability to cost ratio, or their ability to parameter ratio, but virtually everyone using LLMs for productive work are using ChatGPT/Gemini/Claude.
They are kind of like Huffy bicycles. Good value, work well, but if you go to any serious event, no one will be riding one.
This aligns with the benchmarks as well; they benchmark great for what they are, but still bottom of the barrel when competing for "state of the art."
And yes, it's great you daily Chinese models, but the vast majority of people try them, say "impressive", then go back to the most performant models.
while qwen, deepseek and kimi are opensourced and good, they are preferred because of their insane token ratio, they use a lot less for more, but a by product is that they are less accurate it is amazing progress by the chinese companies, but they definitely can improve a lot more
In many senses there's hubris in the western* view of China accomplishments: most of what western companies have created has had significant contribution by Chinese scientists or manufacturing, without which those companies would have nothing. If you look at the names of AI researchers there's a strong pattern even if some are currently plying their trade in the west.
---
* I hate the term "western" because some "westeners" use it to separated what they think are "civilized" from "uncivilized", hence for them LATAM is not "western" even though everything about LATAM countries is western.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, it's important to recognize that this is only a phenomenon of the last ~30 years, and to avoid falling into the trapn of Han racial chauvinism. E.g. there were ~no Chinese scientists in Germany in the 70s but they were heavily innovating nevertheless.
Consequently newer tech is precisely where global cooperation is most required so no country can really do it by themselves. We could even say no country, western or otherwise, has been doing it on their own for the past 500 years or so but alas...
China for sure will catch up, the question is what they will do with it. They're not ambitious like the US/West. The US wanted influence all over the world as an extension of the cold war and to keep economic interests safeguarded. But China just doesn't operate that way. They're more hands-off. They could be opening up alibaba cloud datacenters all over the US, offering it as an AWS/Azure alternative, funding tons of startups all over europe, the US,etc... to exert their influence, but they won't. They have a more long-term low-and-slow approach to global domination. The "100 year marathon" as they called it, which they'll win for sure.
China's greatest weakness is not just their lack of ambition,but their command-economy. They're doing capitalism but with central control of the economy. It intertwines government policy with corporate policy, making it harder to do business overseas (like with bytedance/tiktok).
Westernism is broadly an extension of the academic notion of classicism, starting in Egypt and then Greece Rome and into Europe and the Americas.
How is this hard to understand?
Broadly speaking coast de ivory and the like is not a participant in the international community.
Wait, really? I thought "international community" meant all countries.
Sometimes it's used in the expected way, but (more?) often, "international community" euphemistically refers to whomever is currently one of, or an ally of the above mentioned countries.
It's worked for a very long time for aircraft.
China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline.
If for no technical reasons and purely political, COMAC may still be decades away from being able to fly to most of the world.
Likewise, in ~5 years, China may be able to build Chips that are as good as Nvidia after Nvidia's 90% profit margin - i.e. they are 1/10th as good for the price - but since they can buy them for cost - they're they same price for performance and good enough.
If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.
And both those planes have a strong dependency on "western" components that won't be overcome before the 2030s, and even then, they're around a generation behind.
CFM LEAP, latest short-to-medium-haul airliner engine from CFM (GE+Safran) is from 2013 (first run). Its predecessor, CFM56, is from 1974 (first run) and saw a few evolutions, including as late as 2009.
Note that this happens at the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances, so as of this writing, there's no such thing as certainty about politics.
This isn't happening. The US is driving a harder bargain with our allies. No one serious thinks anyone is walking away from alliances with the US.
Obviously Wall Street would have preferred purchasing from US-listed/owned arms companies, but from the perspective of a military alliance, having well-armed allies is the main point.
It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods if they led to Europe finally spending on their own defense.
On the contrary, his methods are ridiculous. He could have achieved similar ends without kowtowing to Russia, without squandering the opportunity to further weaken Russia’s military capacity, and so on. Something similar applies to pretty much everything else he’s done. He incurs collateral damage on everything even when it’s completely unnecessary to do so. It’s a definitional example of egregious incompetence.
The fact that they are doing this because they don’t trust the US to honor its commitments is a very different proposition from “maybe it’s for the best”.
And if you’re familiar with world war 1 and 2, you might doubt that significant increase in domestic military production is a wholly good thing.
But point stands: it’s an example of formerly-strong alliance that is no longer trusted.
The question of “can we trust the American government” is now being asked more often. Existing alliances and new potential alliances face that question, whether or not you personally believe that they should trust America.
Even if no concrete actions are being performed with asking that question, the fact that question is even being asked is a major drop from where we were.
From the US perspective, we have been asking ourselves "can we trust Europe's military capacity" for a very long time and the answer (prior to 2025) was: NO.
With Trump on one side and Russia on the other, it seems like the answer has shifted to: MAYBE.
When the US called its allies to its wars, NATO responded. Now that the rest of NATO is being threatened, the US is playing neutral, trying to see which side will bid highest for their help.
1. https://apnews.com/article/russia-nato-members-borders-airsp...
2. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-drone-that-cras...
3. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lithuania-says-russian-...
Among other events, like drones being spotted near commercial airports.
Are you suggesting repeated airspace intrusions and acts against civilians are merely acts of innocence?
NATO's mutual defense clause has only been activated once: after 9/11, when the United States declared war on the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Out of the 3621 deaths of coalition soldiers, 1160 of them were from nations other than the United States, including 457 from the UK, 159 from Canada, and 90 from France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...
2001 was 24 years ago. A lot has changed since then. Europe's militaries are much degraded and the threats are much enhanced.
It's "block everything that depends on US clouds", which is a considerable downgrade (because you can't upload all mission parameters to an airplane without going through the cloud, and you can't use self-diagnosis features), but not entirely a kill switch. Close enough, though.
Proof of this happening or even having the capability of happening? There is none.
The EU is pumping money into what they call "digital sovereignty" left and right. Germany just cancelled their Microsoft subscriptions and replaced them with self-funded Open Source for Schleswig-Holstein, which is roughly 5% of all government employees. That's one hell of a trial run. Germany's "OpenDesk" and France’s "La Suite numérique" even made into the new "Franco-German Economic Agenda 2025", which self-describes as "bilateral coordination to full swing for a more sovereign Europe".
I mean, the current administration has repeatedly threatened to invade militarily two of its allies. Also, it has repeatedly threatened to not honor military agreements with most others, and both the current president and vice-president have insulted the leaders of several allied countries to their face.
Oh, and if that weren't sufficient, the current admin has unilaterally broken all trade treaties (alongside most intellectual property treaties) it held with its commercial partners.
The EU is slow at it, but it's no accident that everybody is doing their best to move away from US tech and military dependencies.
See what I did there?
Sigh, the OP chucked out a casual insult at the Chinese because - unlike the USA and EU - their society is unable to (to date) build an international airliner business.
I deftly pointed out that the USA - despite is historical achievements - cannot build a high speed rail network and industry.
Once cannot cherry-pick the data one likes.
If you compromise on safety, you get something that is still suitable for the military. If you don't care about economics you can participate in the space race.
But for commercial air travel, you don't have the luxury to pick just two; a competitive commercial airliner has to perform exceedingly well in all three regards.
If you're an airline using expensive aircraft you will go bankrupt. If your aircraft is too slow then your competitors will eat your lunch, and if you have a reputation of being unsafe then your customers will run away or the government will pull the plug (likely both).
IMHO affordable commercial air travel is one of the biggest marvels of 20th century engineering.
This doesn't matter so much for military purposes: they can easily eat the cost of a higher maintenance and replacement schedule on a smaller number of military jets with fewer hours on them.
This gives them more iteration cycles, speeding their building up of experience. They're catching up. Industrial espionage will help them along too, but not as much as the experience from engineering their own designs.
While you type this, the rest of the world is already using Chinese cars, something that was unthinkable a year or two ago.
The US has closed the market off from this for its auto industry to survive.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
Because, as a EU citizen, I have never in my life seen any tests that carmarkers are advertising with that focus on pedestrians. I am regularly seeing tests that focus on occupants though, e.g. the Euro NCAP. But I am by no means an expert.
It would be hard to focus on pedestrian safety from a carmaker standpoint except for adding software features that recognize people in front of you and auto-brake or smth, which definitely is not the focus of the tests here. It may be a requirement though. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that you just made this up, sorry.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained...
How can a car focus on the safety of pedestrian? Does it detect a pedestrian and fly away like a drone?
You can look at the Euro NCAP ratings for the 2023 BYD Seal, for example: https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/byd/seal/50012. They break down the rating based on safety for adult occupants, child occupants and pedestrians. These ratings are based on many different crash tests.
This was correct a few years years ago.
It's actually the opposite nowadays, most of these cars are safer than the typical 2.5L 4 cylinder American car. Both the EU and Australia has been completely flooded with these cars, to an extent that you'd have to see it to believe it.
I think it's ostensibly supposed to be more about shared cultural values, but even that is a pretty weak way to divide countries. Perhaps "an ally of the United States" is a little more accurate?
Any societal dividing line like this is bound to hit on problems once subjected to the real world.
Why would I do that tho? If we look at the names of scientists/researchers/engineers/businessmen, the conclusion would be that the US has contributed nothing to the world. Europeans did all the hard work!
Historically, top scientists/researchers/engineers/businessmen migrate from rest of the world to the US rather than to Europe or China.
Imagine if Europe or China were a bit more open with immigration and equally attractive, we would see the same pattern there too.
Preventing that could have been prevented in the 70s, 80s, 90s by stopping offshoring, blocking student visas, and prosecuting IP theft.
It is not possible to keep core IP secret. HN folks, of all people, should know this. Anything that thousands of people know is de facto public knowledge.
>students would have just gone to other countries, written their PhD dissertations there, advanced another country’s tech sector,
which other countries specifically? No other country has a tech sector. It's the US hegemony or the China hegemony.
I do not think they need permission. There is no force that could order country to recognize IP. Do you really expect all world forever pay rent to few giant corps?
You're talking about recognizing IP, I am talking about stealing IP AND selling stolen IP in our markets.
1st: yes force can be used to discourage the theft of IP. This is merely an obstacle, not a total blocker 2nd: yes force can be used to block IP from our markets. This is actually incredibly trivial and would have been very easy 40-years ago.
If country does not recognize IP then "stealing" is not a theft in their eyes.
As for using force to prevent "theft": what force? Military? You might get burned really bad.
Talent is proportional to population, but that only matters if society and state has the infrastructure to raise that talent up. Otherwise Nigeria or Indonesia would be scientific powerhouses, and Iran would have modern fighter jets.
The reason why these statements are not true is because of colonization, delayed industrialization, and Western intervention post-independence. Getting out of this “quicksand” is exceedingly difficult.
China did well to industrialize quickly and keep intervention at bay - in fact, you could argue that it making the rest of the world reliant on its industrial capacity helped address the intervention problem.
Japan pre-45 was a world power, and had industrialized by the early 1900s. WW2 was a mere setback.
Korea is more of a “miracle” than Japan was, but they also did well to industrialize ASAP. They also didn’t face the brunt of European colonialism.
But they faced the brunt of Chinese & Japanese colonialism, and a full-blown civil war after which their GDP per capita was in the same ballpark as Kenya's.
Imperialism (as a system of extracting wealth from poor countries) continues to exist, but China has a working countermeasure. You can see similar with Vietnam.
China made the right choice to dump a ton of resources into different industries without the expectation of immediate RoI or any RoI at all. Anyone or anything that got in the way of their goals were dealt with.
https://asteriskmag.com/issues/10/the-origin-of-the-research...
I would characterize my recommendations as things that could have been done for the US to not fund or encourage the re-rise of China.
The elites thought they'd set up shop in a new, gigantic consumer market and reap the rewards. So they got Clinton to spend his last days in office lobbying very aggressively for China's inclusion into the WTO.
China had different plans. Keeping the plunderers out (this time) was one of the smartest moves any nation has made in recorded history. Then the same elites slowly pivoted against China, post realizing they wouldn't be allowed to own China. If we can own you, you're our friend; if we can't own you, you're our enemy. And this is quite obviously not a defense of China's human rights record or anything else, that's not the point. China only mattered (in the enemy sense) when the elites realized they were going to be locked on the outside of the rise.
So... Seems that's exactly what they are getting.
Dream on ...
It’s notable that China did not adopt the same policy during the period you are associating with their rise. Indeed, they’ve taken the opposite stance in recent years and (now that they have stolen American IP) have moved to seize control of assets and expel the superfluous foreigners.
There is a lesson to be learned there, but it’s contrary to the argument you are trying to make.
It’s funny - it’s at the point with Chinese manufacturing for niche electronic goods (e.g rooftop van air conditioner) where some Chinese brands are more trustworthy - more value for your money and sometimes even better overall quality. With American brands you gotta make sure you’re not overpaying for dated tech that is inefficient. Maybe the same will happen with LLMs.
Enterprises often prefer having US based support and so can prefer US or European machines that have that supply chain setup.
Mexico is a modern country, an industrialized country, a country that is exactly as "western" as the US or Canada. They have the same religious beliefs, speak a dialect of a European language. They have European style cities, a long history of cultural contributions. Yet they're not white enough to be part of "The West".
I think at this point we should be honest with ourselves in it's usage. 90% of the time it's a racist dog whistle.
You do realize that antagonizing people with nuclear weapons and the largest economies in the world rarely results in positive results, right?
In many contexts, Mexico and other LatAm countries are included in the Western Civilization grouping. For instance: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/western-c...
Earlier in your comment you say “half the time” while you end with “90% of the time” the phrase “western” is a racist expression, undermining your argument that is already flawed, emotional, and anti-constructive.
The stuff you bring up ignore the power dynamics which are arguably the most important part.
Really? How long has China been attempting to build their own jet engines? How long have they been attempting to build competitive CPUs?
History has shown withholding tech successfully keeps them at least a generation behind the west.
In some fields like CPUs they “make up for it” by just building larger clusters, but ultimately history does not show what you’re claiming. The only thing it shows is that we need to be even more diligent in protecting IP because a large portion of their catching up is a direct result of stealing the tech they were cut off from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACAE_CJ-1000A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Manufacturing_In...
Huh? Did you read your own link? The jet engine that was shown at an aviation show as a non-functioning prototype in 2011, with hopes they'd have a functioning version by 2016, and in service by 2020 (it wasn't in service in 2020). Notice at the very top of your own article it says "still in development".
>CPU since 2000
That isn't remotely competitive, and at least a full generation behind.
Literally anyone can make a prototype jet engine. The metallurgy and process to make a functioning one is several orders of magnitude more difficult. Which is why... China still buys the vast, vast majority of their jet engines from Russia for military use. And their commercial passenger jets use engines from CFM.
Despite ample and repeated evidence that they can and, in China’s case, that they’re the best in the world in several areas of manufacturing.
I don't think you can really produce a definite counterfactual that they would or wouldn't have taken longer or shorter without it, but certainly they were pushing for self sufficiency long before technology restrictions. But we're not going to be handing our technologies to our competitors on a silver platter, and it's also best for businesses to start weaning themselves off the Chiinese market. Virtually every market reliant on them today is in big trouble.
As for hubris, I think that's more a projection of your part if you want to start bringing up race cards with regards to contributions, that kind of argument would be applicable to everyone. And AI research is highly diverse and international, Chinese names don't dominate the list more than Turks, Greeks, Malaysians, etc.
Your first statement is not likely unique to China though, even though they have demonstrated that in about the last 40 years, which I don't really think qualifies as "history". What it does demonstrate is that societies that have a certain kind of ethnic self-respect and can cast off the detrimental influences of foreign, hostile, and even enemy elements to pursue their own self-interest and survival will succeed, regardless of hurdles placed before them.
It's really just a story of personal development and either escaping, evading, and avoiding detrimental, toxic people and their behaviors. All of humanity that all has to currently still share a single planet with ZERO save spots, would be better off if we all not just allowed each other to be ourselves in our won places without others subverting, subjugating, infiltrating, dominating, poisoning, or polluting any other people on the planet. Then everyone can decide if we want to be friends or not friends with each other, collaborate and be friendly or simply avoid each other. We do not have to like each other to get along if everyone agrees on a base understanding that no people can parasitize and abuse and manipulate any others.
Concepts that enable the individual should empower a chosen configuration of society not the other way around.
Contrast this with non westernism where either education of the individual is not valued or the state is the primary goal over the individual.
I’ve worked with states governments and individuals around the world for 20 years and find this very useful definition. What’s confusing is the nations who have half adopted westernism but don’t fully due to either caste systems or government dominated thinking.
It’s an arrow towards rationalism over tradition, individualism over collectivism, flatness over hierarchy, and future over past. But only the limit of the resources any given society has.
Also, isn't this the usual path to better computer science? Reducing computation needs by making better/more efficient algorithms? The whole "trillions of dollars of brute force GPU strength" proposed by Altman, Nadella, Musk et al just seems to reinforce that these are business people at heart, not engineers/computer scientists...
Aside from geography, attracting talent from all over the world is the one edge the US has a nation over countries like China. But now the US is trying to be xenophobic like China, restrict tech import/export like China but compete against 10x population and lack of similar levels of internal strife and fissures.
The world, even Europe is looking for a new country to take on a leader/superpower role. China isn't there yet, but it might get there in a few years after their next-gen fighter jets and catching up to ASML.
But, China's greatest weakness is their lack of ambition and focus on regional matters like Taiwan and south china sea, instead of winning over western europe and india.
155 more comments available on Hacker News