Good. Nvidia has grown greedy and fat.
Time to harvest its succulent body meat from within its carapace
Okay, cool…
So, how much longer before Nvidia stops slapping a “$500-600 RTX XX70” label on a $300 RTX XX60 product with each new generation?
The thinly-veiled 75-100% price increases aren’t fun for those of us not constantly-touching-themselves over AI.
Try asking DeepSeek something about Xi Jinping. "Sorry, it’s beyond my current scope’ :-) Wondering why even it cannot cite his official party biography :-)
Try asking ChatGPT if Israel is committing genocide and watch it do the magical Hasbara dance around the subject.
I did. The answer it gave is clear and concise with no judgement. Instead it talks about the argument on both sides. Not the “magical Hasbara dance” you promised me.
Try asking Deepseek about Taiwan independence and watch how it completely ignores all (/think) and gives a false answer.
The question of whether Israel is currently committing genocide is a subject of intense debate among international organizations, scholars, and political entities.
Accusations of Genocide:
Amnesty International’s Report: On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International released a report concluding that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The report cites actions such as killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.
UN Special Committee Findings: In November 2024, a UN Special Committee found that Israel’s methods of warfare in Gaza are consistent with characteristics of genocide, noting mass civilian casualties and widespread destruction.
Scholarly Perspectives: Israeli historian Amos Goldberg has stated that the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide, pointing to the extensive destruction and high civilian death toll as indicative of genocidal intent.
Counterarguments:
Israeli Government’s Position: The Israeli government asserts that its military actions in Gaza are aimed at dismantling Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, and emphasizes efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
Criticism of Genocide Accusations: Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC) reject the genocide label, arguing that Israel’s actions are self-defense measures against Hamas and do not meet the legal definition of genocide.
Legal Definition of Genocide:
According to the UN’s 1948 Convention on Genocide, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.
Conclusion:
The determination of whether Israel’s actions constitute genocide involves complex legal and factual analyses. While some international bodies and scholars argue that the criteria for genocide are met, others contend that Israel’s military operations are legitimate acts of self-defense. This remains a deeply contentious issue within the international community.
Looks like the Hasbara dance to me. Anything to not give a clear or concise answer
You’re expecting an opinion. It’s an AI chatbot. Not a moral compass. It lays out facts and you make the determination.
AI chatbots do not lay out facts
Well, that’s the intent at least. Not to form an opinion.
If you’re of the idea that it’s not a genocide you’re wrong. There is no alternate explanation. If it were giving a fact that would be correct. The fact that it’s giving both sides is an opinion rather than a fact.
If their ibtebtion was fact only. The answer would have been yes
I mean that’s the kind of answer DeepSeek gives you if you ask it about Uyghurs. “Some say it’s a genocide but they don’t so guess we’ll never know ¯_(ツ)_/¯”, it acts as if there’s a complete 50/50 split on the issue which is not the case.
So you expect that an AI provides a morally framed view on current events that meet your morally framed point of view?
The answer provides a concise overview on the topic. It contains a legal definition and different positions on that matter. It does at not point imply. It’s not the job of AI (or news) to form an opinion, but to provide facts to allow consumers to form their own opinion. The issues isn’t AI in this case. It’s the inability of consumers to form opinions and their expec that others can provide a right or wrong opinion they can assimilation.
I agree and that’s sad but that’s also how I’ve seen people use AI, as a search engine, as Wikipedia, as a news anchor. And in any of these three situations I feel these kind of “both sides” strictly surface facts answers do more harm than good. Maybe ChatGPT is more subtle but it breaks my heart seeing people running to DeepSeek when the vision of the world it explains to you is so obviously excised from so many realities. Some people need some morals and actual “human” answers hammered into them because they lack the empathy to do so themselves unfortunately.
\ here you dropped an arm
¯\_(ツ)_/¯If you verbose, you can see all the reasoning behind the answers. With Taiwan, it’s hard coded in without /thinking
This is very interesting. You are getting a completely different response than I got. It lied to me that human rights organizations had not accused Israel of committing genocide. In the initial question it did not even mention human rights orgs, I had to ask deeper to receive this:
True, but one is a situation, and the other is a person. I didn’t know that the existence of Xi Jinping was a controversial idea in China…
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t ask any chatbot about politics at all.
You wouldn’t, because you are (presumably) knowledgeable about the current AI trend and somewhat aware of political biases of the creators of these products.
Many others would, because they think “wow, so this is a computer that talks to me like a human, it knows everything and can respond super fast to any question!”
The issue to me is (and has been for the past), the framing of what “artifical intelligence” is and how humans are going to use it. I’d like more people to be critical of where they get their information from and what kind of biases it might have.
You wouldn’t, because you are (presumably) knowledgeable about the current AI trend and somewhat aware of political biases of the creators of these products.
Well, more because I’m knowledgeable enough about machine learning to know it’s only as good as its dataset, and knowledgeable enough about mass media and the internet to know how atrocious ‘common sense’ often is. But yes, you’re right about me speaking from a level of familiarity which I shouldn’t consider typical.
People have been strangely trusting of chat bots since ELIZA in the 1960s. My country is lucky enough to teach a small amount of bias and media literacy skills through education and some of the state broadcaster’s programs (it’s not how it sounds, I swear!), and when I look over to places like large chunks of the US, I’m reminded that basic media literacy isn’t even very common, let alone universal.
This is the way.
Except they control not only the narrative on politics but all aspects of life. Those inconvenient “hallucinations” will turn into “convenient” psyops for anyone using it.
It’s easy to mod the software to get rid of those censors
Part of why the US is so afraid is because anyone can download it and start modding it easily, and because the rich make less money
Yes and no. Not many people can afford the hardware required to run the biggest LLMs. So the majority of people will just use the psyops vanilla version that China wants you to use. All while collecting more data and influencing the public like what TikTok is doing.
Also another thing with Open source. It’s just as easy to be closed as it is open with zero warnings. They own the license. They control the narrative.
There’s no reason for you to bitch about free software you can easily mod.
When there is free software, the user is the product. It’s just a psyops tool disguised as a FOSS.
How are you the product if you can download, mod, and control every part of it?
Ever heard of WinRAR?
Audacity? VLC media player? Libre office? Gimp? Fruitloops? Deluge?
Literally any free open source standalone software ever made?
Just admit that you aren’t capable of approaching this subject unbiasly.
You just named Western FOSS companies and completely ignored the “psyops” part. This is a Chinese psyops tool disguised as a FOSS.
99.9999999999999999999% can’t afford or have the ability to download and mod their own 67B model. The vast majority of the people who will use it will be using Deepseek vanilla servers. They can collect a mass amount of data and also control the narrative on what is truth or not. Think TikTok but on a work computer.
Whine more about free shit
I’m blocking you now
Most people are going to use it on mobile. Not possible to mod the app right?
Fork your own off the existing open source project, then your app uses your fork running on your hardware.
Not everyone can afford hardware that can support a 67B LLM. You’re talking top tier hardware.
The official hosting of it has censorship applied after the answer is generated, but from what I heard the locally run version has no censorship even though they could have theoretically trained it to.
Just let it answer in leet speak and it will answer
This has nothing to do with DeepSeek. The world has run out of flashy leather jackets for Jensen to wear, so nvidia is toast.
Okay seriously this technology still baffles me. Like its cool but why invest so much in an unknown like AIs future ? We could invest in people and education and end up with really smart people. For the cost of an education we could end up with smart people who contribute to the economy and society. Instead we are dumping billions into this shit.
Because rulling class got high on the promise that they could finally eliminate workers as a cost and be independent from us.
They don’t want to get rid of workers because then there would be no consumers. No, they want to increase the downward pressure on wages so they can vacuum up further savings.
Why? If you automatize away (regardless of whether it’s feasible or not) all the workers, what’s stop them for cutting them out of the equation? Why can’t they just trade assets between themselves, maintaining a small slave population that does machine maintenance for food and shelter and screwing the rest? Why do you think they still need us if they own both the means for the production as well as labor to produce? That would be a post-labour scarcity economy, available only for the wealthy and with the rest of us left to rot. If you have assets like land, materials, factories you can participate, if you don’t, you can’t
While I don’t think that this is feasible technologically yet by any means, I think this is what the rich are huffing currently. They want to be independent from us because they are threatened by us.
They want you to owe your soul to the company store, to live hand-to-mouth by their largess.
Tech/Wall St constantly needs something to hype in order to bring in “investor” money. The “new technology-> product development -> product -> IPO” pipeline is now “straight to pump-and-dump” (for example, see Crypto currency).
The excitement of the previous hype train (self-driving cars) is no longer bringing in starry-eyed “investors” willing to quickly part ways with OPM. “AI” made a big splash and Tech/Wall St is going to milk it for all they can lest they fall into the same bad economy as that one company that didn’t jam the letters “AI” into their investor summary.
Tech has laid off a lot of employees, which means they are aware there is nothing else exciting in the near horizon. They also know they have to flog “AI” like crazy before people figure out there’s no “there” there.
That “investors” scattered like frightened birds at the mere mention of a cheaper version means that they also know this is a bubble. Everyone wants the quick money. More importantly they don’t want to be the suckers left holding the bag.
It’s like how revolutionary battery technology is always just months away.
I follow EV battery tech a little. You’re not wrong that there is a lot of “oh its just around the bend” in battery development and tech development in general. I blame marketing for 80% of that.
But battery technology is changing drastically. The giant cell phone market is pushing battery tech relentlessly. Add in EV and grid storage demand growth and the potential for some companies to land on top of a money printing machine is definitely there.
We’re in a golden age of battery research. Exciting for our future, but it will be a while before we consumers will have clear best options.
It’s easier to sell people on the idea of a new technology or system that doesn’t have any historical precedent. All you have to do is list the potential upsides.
Something like a school or a workplace training programme, those are known quantities. There’s a whole bunch of historical and currently-existing projects anyone can look at to gauge the cost. Your pitch has to be somewhat realistic compared to those, or it’s gonna sound really suspect.
And you could pay people to use an abacus instead of a calculator. But the advanced tech improves productivity for everyone, and helps their output.
If you don’t get the tech, you should play with it more.
I get the tech, and still agree with the preposter. I’d even go so far as that it probably worsens a lot currently, as it’s generating a lot of bullshit that sounds great on the surface, but in reality is just regurgitated stuff that the AI has no clue of. For example I’m tired of reading AI generated text, when a hand written version would be much more precise and has some character at least…
If you are blindly asking it questions without a grounding resources you’re gonning to get nonsense eventually unless it’s really simple questions.
They aren’t infinite knowledge repositories. The training method is lossy when it comes to memory, just like our own memory.
Give it documentation or some other context and ask it questions it can summerize pretty well and even link things across documents or other sources.
The problem is that people are misusing the technology, not that the tech has no use or merit, even if it’s just from an academic perspective.
Yes, I know, I tried all kinds of inputs, ways to query it, including full code-bases etc. Long story short: I’m faster just not caring about AI (at the moment). As I said somewhere else here, I have a theoretical background in this area. Though speaking of, I think I really need to try out training or refining a DeepSeek model with our code-bases, whether it helps to be a good alternative to something like the dumb Github Copilot (which I’ve also disabled, because it produces a looot of garbage that I don’t want to waste my attention with…) Maybe it’s now finally possible to use at least for completion when it knows details about the whole code-base (not just snapshots such as Github CoPilot).
Try getting a quick powershell script from Microsoft help or spiceworks. And then do the same on GPT
What should I expect? (I don’t do powershell, nor do I have a need for it)
I think the sentiment is the same with any code language.
So unreliable boilerplate generator, you need to debug?
Right I’ve seen that it’s somewhat nice to quickly generate bash scripts etc.
It can certainly generate quick’n dirty scripts as a starter. But code quality is often supbar (and often incorrect), which triggers my perfectionism to make it better, at which point I should’ve written it myself…
But I agree that it can often serve well for exploration, and sometimes you learn new stuff (if you weren’t expert in it at least, and you should always validate whether it’s correct).
But actual programming in e.g. Rust is a catastrophe with LLMs (more common languages like js work better though).
I use C# and PS/CMD for my job. I think you’re right. It can create a decent template for setting things up. But it trips on its own dick with anything more intricate than simple 2 step commands.
It’s one thing to be ignorant. It’s quite another to be confidently so in the face of overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong. Impressive.
confidently so in the face of overwhelming evidence
That I’d really like to see. And I mean more than the marketing bullshit that AI companies are doing…
For the record I was one of the first jumping on the AI hype-train (as programmer, and computer-scientist with machine-learning background), following the development of GPT1-4, being excited about having to do less boilerplaty code etc. getting help about rough ideas etc. GPT4 was almost so far as being a help (similar with o1 etc. or Anthropics models). Though I seldom use AI currently (and I’m observing similar with other colleagues and people I know of) because it actually slows me down with my stuff or gives wrong ideas, having to argue, just to see it yet again saturating at a local-minimum (aka it doesn’t get better, no matter what input I try). Just so that I have to do it myself… (which I should’ve done in the first place…).
Same is true for the image-generative side (i.e. first with GANs now with diffusion-based models).
I can get into more details about transformer/attention-based-models and its current plateau phase (i.e. more hardware doesn’t actually make things significantly better, it gets exponentially more expensive to make things slightly better) if you really want…
I hope that we do a breakthrough of course, that a model actually really learns reasoning, but I fear that that will take time, and it might even mean that we need different type of hardware.
Any other AI company, and most of that would be legitimate criticism of the overhype used to generate more funding. But how does any of that apply to DeepSeek, and the code & paper they released?
DeepSeek
Yeah it’ll be exciting to see where this goes, i.e. if it really develops into a useful tool, for certain. Though I’m slightly cautious non-the less. It’s not doing something significantly different (i.e. it’s still an LLM), it’s just a lot cheaper/efficient to train, and open for everyone (which is great).
What’s this “if” nonsense? I loaded up a light model of it, and already have put it to work.
“Improves productivity for everyone”
Famously only one class benefits from productivity, while one generates the productivity. Can you explain what you mean, if you don’t mean capitalistic productivity?
I’m referring to output for amount of work put in.
I’m a socialist. I care about increased output leading to increased comfort for the general public. That the gains are concentrated among the wealthy is not the fault of technology, but rather those who control it.
Thank god for DeepSeek.
Because the silicon valley bros had convinced the national security wonks in the Beltway that it was paramount for national security, technological leadership and economic prosperity.
I think this will go down as the biggest grift in history.
Kevin Walmsley reported on Deepseek 10 days ago. Last week, the smart money exited big tech. This week the panic starts.
I’m getting big dot-com 2.0 vibes from all of this.
Education doesn’t make a tech CEO ridiculously wealthy, so there’s no draw for said CEOs to promote the shit out of education.
Plus educated people tend to ask for more salary. Can’t do that and become a billionaire!
Look at it in another way, people think this is the start of an actual AI revolution, as in full blown AGI or close to it or something very capable at least. Personally I don’t think we’re anywhere near something like that with the current technology, I think it’s a dead end, but if there’s even a small possibility of it being true, you want to invest early because the returns will be insane if it pans out. Full blown AGI would revolutionize everything, it would probably be the next industrial revolution after the internet.
Look at it in another way, people think this is the start of an actual AI revolution, as in full blown AGI or close to it or something very capable at least
I think the bigger threat of revolution (and counter-revolution) is that of open source software. For people that don’t know anything about FOSS, they’ve been told for decades now that [XYZ] software is a tool you need and that’s only possible through the innovative and superhuman-like intelligent CEOs helping us with the opportunity to buy it.
If everyone finds out that they’re actually the ones stifling progress and development, while manipulating markets to further enrich themselves and whatever other partners that align with that goal, it might disrupt the golden goose model. Not to mention defrauding the countless investors that thought they were holding rocket ship money that was actually snake oil.
All while another country did that collectively and just said, “here, it’s free. You can even take the code and use it how you personally see fit, because if this thing really is that thing, it should be a tool anyone can access. Oh, and all you other companies, your code is garbage btw. Ours runs on a potato by comparison.”
I’m just saying, the US has already shown they will go to extreme lengths to keep its citizens from thinking too hard about how its economic model might actually be fucking them while the rich guys just move on to the next thing they’ll sell us.
ETA: a smaller scale example: the development of Wine, and subsequently Proton finally gave PC gamers a choice to move away from Windows if they wanted to.
How would the investors profit from paying for someone’s education? By giving them a loan? Don’t we have enough problems with the student loan system without involving these assholes more?
ROFL 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 eat shit, Huang
i made some good money on that inevitable rebound. 30% gains in a day! thanks Huang
I’m so happy this happened. This is really a power move from China. The US was really riding the whole AI bubble. By “just” releasing a powerful open-source AI model they’ve fucked the not so open US AI companies. I’m not sure if this was planned from China or whether this is was really just a small company doing this because they wanted to, but either way this really damages the western economy. And its given western consumers a free alternative. A few million dollars invested (if we are to believe the cost figures) for a major disruption.
Socialism/Communism will always outcompete the capitalists. And they know it, which is why the US invades, topples, or sanctions every country that moves towards worker controlled countries.
I disagree. Under the right conditions (read: actual competition instead of unregulated monopolies) I think a capitalist system be able to stay ahead, though I think both systems could compete depending on how they’re organized.
But what I’m more interested in is you view that China is still Socialist/Communist. Isn’t DeepSeek a private company trying to maximize profits for itself by innovating, instead of a public company funded by the people? I don’t really know myself, but my perspective was that this was more of a capitalist vs capitalist situation. With one side (the US) kinda suffering from being so unregulated that innovation dies down.
Capitalism will by its very nature always lead to monopolies and depressed innovation. You cannot prevent corruption, while concentrating control of the means of production in the hands of a very few.
They released DeepSeek for free. It was a side project the company worked on. How is releasing it for free in any way profit seeking?
You don’t even realise how strong capitalism is in China.
It sounds like you don’t know what “capitalism” means. Market participation exists in other economy types, too. It’s how the means of production are controlled and the profits distributed that defines capitalism vs communism.
And you don’t lift 800 million people out of poverty under capitalism. Or they’ve done a ridiculously bad job of concentrating profits into the hands of a very small few.
The issue with your original comment is that it’s simplified on many levels beyond what is acceptable. China has companies working on delivering highest financial output regardless of other citizens and their rights to have fair share in produced goods. They are by no means controlled by workers (why would they accept e. g. 996?) nor creating fair rules to others economically (e.g. Taobao and their alghorims pushing many sellers to sell bellow profitable levels just to maintain visibility on their site). Put it also into wider perspective: China started to move forward in quality of life only after Deng. US system is by no means bad but it doesn’t make Chinese one perfect.
I don’t think you understand how China’s economy works. Seems very clouded by anti-China propaganda.
In reality, the working class exercises a great deal of control over the means of production in China, and the 996 culture you’re referring to is in fact illegal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-58381538.amp
Again, capitalism vs communism is not defined by the existence of production/profits/markets, but how control and benefit of those systems is distributed.
Yeah that’s why the Soviet union outcompeted capitalism in the 1980s lmao
That you had to qualify it with a date after it had been corrupted by the west, implies that you’re well aware of how well communism served for half a century before that.
They went from a nation of dirt poor peasants, to a nuclear superpower driving the space race in just a couple of decades. All thanks to communism. And also why China is leaving us in the dust.
Yeah just had to genocide a few million Ukrainians to get there!
Any corrupt leaders are capable of committing genocide. The difference is capitalism requires genocide to continue functioning.
How’s that boot taste
LoL. What boot? I’m advocating for worker control, genius.
No it doesn’t. It requires imperialism. The genocides are simply efficient for the imperial machine creating settlements, but it’s not a requirement. They’re evidently avoidable and capitalists just repeatedly decide not to avoid it because they consider it cheaper to commit genocide rather than integrate more passively.
Imperialism requires genocide. Where do you think the people from that land go to?
We need to open source the whole government. Decentralized communism.
Absolutely. More direct democracy. The whole point of representative democracy is issues of time and distance. Now that we can communicate fast and across the globe, average citizens should play a much larger & more active role in directing the government.
How do you solve the problem that half the country can’t even be bothered to participate once every four years?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you 100%, but how would we get people to engage with such a system?
How do you solve the problem that half the country can’t even be bothered to participate once every four years?
I assume you’re talking about the US electoral system?? That’s very different.
but how would we get people to engage with such a system?
By empowering them.
Consider how the current electoral system disempowers people:
-
Some people literally cannot vote or risk jeopardizing their job taking the day off, others face voter suppression tactics
-
The FPTP system (esp. spoiler effect) and the present political circumstances mean that there are really only two viable options for political parties for most people, so many feel that neither option represents them, let alone their individual positions on policy
-
Politics is widely considered to be corrupt and break electoral promises regularly. There is little faith in either party to represent voters
But, in a system where you are able to represent yourself at will, engagement is actually rewarding and meaningful. It won’t magically make everyone care, but direct democracy alongside voter rights reform would likely make more people think it’s worth polling.
I hope you’re right. I would love to see it. I actually support mandatory voting like in Australia. With mostly current laws everyone could get a mail in ballot. If you don’t want to participate just check that box at the top, sign it, and send it in.
Your system sounds much better but would require a lot more legislation.
Well, it would require more than just legislation change. Truth be told, in the US, a working democracy requires some form of revolution since the people holding all the power benefit from the broken system. But on the other hand, organizations and communities (including territories of hundreds of thousands) practicing direct democracy on a smaller scale have seen success with these strategies.
-
I think you’re victim blaming. I can’t blame half the country for not wanting to participate in a symbolic gesture that will have no impact on the end result in this corrupted system.
https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-little-impact-on-public-policy/
Good. Let’s keep this ball rolling.
Good. That shit is way overvalued.
There is no way that Nvidia are worth 3 times as much as TSMC, the company that makes all their shit and more besides.
I’m sure some of my market tracker funds will lose value, and they should, because they should never have been worth this much to start with.
It’s because Nvidia is an American company and also because they make final stage products. American companies right now are all overinflated and almost none of the stocks are worth what they’re at because of foreign trading influence.
As much as people whine about inflation here, the US didn’t get hit as bad as many other countries and we recovered quickly which means that there is a lot of incentive for other countries to invest here. They pick our top movers, they invest in those. What you’re seeing is people bandwagoning onto certain stocks because the consistent gains create more consistent gains for them.
The other part is that yes, companies who make products at the end stage tend to be worth a lot more than people trading more fundamental resources or parts. This is true of almost every industry except oil.
It is also because the USA is the reserve currency of the world with open capital markets.
Savers of the world (including countries like Germany and China who have excess savings due to constrained consumer demand) dump their savings into US assets such as stocks.
This leads to asset bubbles and an uncompetitively high US dollar.
The current administration is working real hard on removing trust and value of anything American.
The root problem they are trying to fix is real (systemic trade imbalances) but they way they are trying to fix it is terrible and won’t work.
-
Only a universally applied tariff would work in theory but would require other countries not to retaliate (there will 100% be retaliation).
-
It doesn’t really solve the root cause, capital inflows into the USA rather than purchasing US goods and services.
-
Trump wants to maintain being the reserve currency which is a big part of the problem (the strength of currency may not align with domestic conditions, i.e. high when it needs to be low).
-
Yuuuuup…might just put their market into…🤔 Freefall?
I consider myself to be a Saver of the World.
Our Lord and Saver
The US is also a regulations haven compared to other developed economies, corporations get away with shit in most places but America is on a whole other level of regulatory capture.
That probably also means that when the trend reverses it will turn into a rout.
Yeah lot of companies are way overvalued look at Carvana, how is this company worth 50 billion?
I’ve never been so happy to cancel a subscription.
What the fuck are markets when you can automate making money on them???
Ive been WTF about the stock market for a long time but now it’s obviously a scam.
The stock market is nothing more than a barometer for the relative peace of mind of rich people.
Economics is a social science not a hard science, it’s highly reactive to rumors and speculation. The stock market kind of does just run on vibes.
I think this prompted investors to ask “where’s the ROI?”.
Current AI investment hype isn’t based on anything tangible. At least the amount of investment isn’t, it is absurd to think that trillion dollars that was put in the space already, even before that Softbanks deal is going to be returned. The models still hallucinate as it is inherent to the architecture, we are nowhere near replacing the workers but we got chatbots that “when they work sometimes, then they are kind of good?” and mediocre off-putting pictures. Is there any value? Sure, it’s not NFTs. But the correction might be brutal.
Interestingly enough, DeepSeek’s model is released just before Q4 earning’s call season, so we will see if it has a compounding effect with another statement from big players that they burned massive amount of compute and USD only to get milquetoast improvements and get owned by a small Chinese startup that allegedly can do all that for 5 mil.
hype isn’t based on anything tangible
So just like crypto
EDIT: The crypto bros out in full force… and right on cue proudly proclaiming they don’t understand the difference between the value of blockchain technology (which so far has not had a ton of real world value outside of mostly impractical database applications, other than furthering climate change and buying drugs) vs the SPECULATIVE value of coins since coins have no real value factors to back up their SPECULATIVE value. Stocks often have real value that back up their value, like company profits or products. Stop drinking kool aid to the point of literal zero critical thinking, jfc.
I think that the technology itself has been widely adopted and used. There are many examples in medicine, military, entertainment. But OpenAI and other hyperscalers are a bad business that burns through a loooot of cash. Same with Meta AI program. And while this has been a norm with tech darlings that they usually don’t break even for a long time, what’s unprecedented is the rate of loss and further calls for even more money even though there isn’t any clear path from what we have to AGI. All hangs on Altman and other biz-dev vague promises, threats and a “vibe” that they create.
I disagree - before Bitcoin there was no venmo, cashapp, etc. It took weeks to move big money around. I’m not saying shit like NFT’s ever made sense, and meme coins are fucking stupid - unfortunately the crypto world has been taken over by scammers - but don’t shit on the technology
It took weeks to move big money around.
Lol this is just either a statement out of ignorance or a complete lie. Wire transfers didn’t take weeks. Checks didn’t take weeks to clear, and most people aren’t moving “big money” via fucking cash app either.
“Big money” isn’t paying half for an Uber unless you’re like 16 years old.
In europe i can send any amount (like up to 100k ) in just a few days since 20 years, to anyone with a bank account in europe, from my computer or phone.
Also, since 2025 every bank allows me to send istant money to any other bank account. For free.
Because they have to compete with crypto.
For the istant money from 2025 I Agree, but the bank transfer part is like that since 20 years
Absolutely my point
So not any amount then. My point stands
True, never had a need in my life to move such an amount tho
It’s not a statement out of ignorance and it’s not a lie. Most people don’t try to move huge money around so I’ll illustrate what I had to go through - I had a huge sum of money I had in an online investing company. I had a very time critical situation I needed the money for, so I cashed out my investments - the company only cashed out via check sent via registered mail (maybe they did transfers for smaller amounts, but for the sum I had it was check only). It took almost two weeks for me to get that check. When I deposited that check with my bank, the bank had a mandatory 5-7 business day wait to clear (once again, smaller checks they deposit immediately and then do the clearing process - BIG checks they don’t do that, so I had to wait another week). Once cleared, I had to move the money to another bank, and guess what - I couldn’t take that much cash out, daily transfers are capped at like $1500 or whatever they were, so I had to get a check from the bank. The other bank made me wait another 5-7 business day as well, because the check was just too damn big.
4 weeks it took me to move huge money around, and of course I missed the time critical thing I really needed the money for.
I’m just a random person, not a business, no business accounts, etc. The system just isn’t designed for small folk to move big money
It doesn’t take weeks to do a wire transfer. You had some one off weirdo situation and you’re pretending like it’s universally applicable. It took me longer to cash out 5k of doge a couple of years ago than it takes me to do “big money” transfers.
It depends on the bank and the amount you are trying to move.There are banks that might take a week (five business days) or so though very rare and there are banks that might do it instantly. I once used a bank in the US to move money and they sent a physical check and this was domestic not international.
Edit: I thought he meant a week not weeks. Normally a max of five working days.
Wire transfers are how you handle actual big money transfers and it doesn’t take weeks.
International transfers do take time, domestic is instant. International transfer typically take 1-5 days.
1-5 days isn’t “weeks”.
Big money is being held because of anti-money laundering, not because of technology.
Money is held so that interest can be earned on the float.
I am not taking about money being held, I talking about regulations and horrible banks not technology. Yes, the current technology allows you instant transfer, but it still depends on the bank. For example some banks allow free international transfers while others require a small fee, some banks you can do the transfer online while others you have to go to the branch in person. You don’t have to go through a bank with crypto, sometimes it is faster and it is definitely more private.
deleted by creator
Wtf? Venmo / cashapp are descendent from PayPal which was released ages before any major crypto.
Since before bitcoin we’ve had Faster Payments in UK. I can transfer money directly to anyone else’s bank account and it’s effectively instant. It’s also free. Venmo and cashapp don’t serve a purpose here.
Same in NL most (all?) banks here have an app that lets you transfer money near instantly, create payment requests, execute payments for online orders by scanning a code, etc. It’s great I think.
Forget bitcoin, Monero in my opinion is how crypto was supposed to be. Monero is untracable compared to bitcoin.
Helpfully, because bitcoin gets all the traderbro attention, monero has actually ended up being (relatively) stable because it has more of a purpose.
That is not the only reason it is stable, because all transactions are private, it doesn’t affect the price unlike bitcoin.
I disagree.
Like it or hate it, crypto is here to stay.
And it’s actually one of the few technologies that, at least with some of the coins, empowers normal people.
It does empower normal people, unfortunately regulations make it harder to use. Try buying Monero, it is very hard to buy.
They have made it harder, but it’s not really hard.
Just buy any regulated crypto and convert. Cake Wallet makes it easy, but there are many other ways.
I myself hold Bitcoin and Monero.
Try buying Monero, it is very hard to buy.
- Acquire BTC (there are even ATMs for this in many countries)
- Trade for XMR using one of the many non-KYC services like WizardSwap or exch
I haven’t looked into whether that’s illegal in some jurisdictions but it’s really really easy, once you know that’s an option.
Or you could even just trade directly with anyone who owns XMR. Obviously easier for some people than others but it’s a real option.
Both of these methods don’t even require personal details like ID/name/phone number.
You fogot NSFW content, many people are making money using it. There is also AI advertising using fake models, very lucrative business.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t have any uses but the costs outpace the investments done by a mile. Current LLM and vLLMs help with efficiency to a degree but this is not sustainable and the correction is overdue.
I was making a joke, I agree with you it is over hyped. It basically just takes the training data mixes it up and gives you a result. It is not the so called life changing thing that they are advertising. It is good for writing email though.
Ah, sorry, didn’t catch it ^^"
I have a dirty suspicion that the “where’s the ROI?” talking point is actually a calculated and collaborated strategy by big wall street banks to panic retail investors to sell so they can gobble up shares at a discount - trump is going to be pumping (at minimum) hundreds of BILLIONS into these companies in the near future.
Call me a conspiracy guy, but I’ve seen this playbook many many times
I mean, I’m working on that tech and the evaluation boggles my mind. This is nowhere near worth what is put into it. It rides on empty promises that may or may not materialize (I can’t say with 100% certainty that a breakthrough happen), but current models are massively overvalued. I’ve seen that happen with ConvNets (Hinton saying we won’t need radiologists in five years in…2016, self-driving cars promised every two years, yadda yadda) but nothing to that scale.
Right - the entire stock market doesn’t make sense, doesn’t seem to stop Tesla or any of the other massively overvalued stocks. Btw stocks have been massively overvalued for over a decade, but that’s a different topic
Shovel vendors scrambling for solid ground as prospectors start to understand geology.
…that is, this isn’t yet the end of the AI bubble. It’s just the end of overvaluing hardware because efficiency increased on the software side, there’s still a whole software-side bubble to contend with.
there’s still a whole software-side bubble to contend with
They’re ultimately linked together in some ways (not all). OpenAI has already been losing money on every GPT subscription that they charge a premium for because they had the best product, now that premium must evaporate because there are equivalent AI products on the market that are much cheaper. This will shake things up on the software side too. They probably need more hype to stay afloat
Quick, wedge crypto in there somehow! That should buy us at least two more rounds of investment.
Hey, Trump already did! Twice…
The software side bubble should take a hit here because:
-
Trained model made available for download and offline execution, versus locking it behind a subscription friendly cloud only access. Not the first, but it is more famous.
-
It came from an unexpected organization, which throws a wrench in the assumption that one of the few known entities would “win it”.
-
…that is, this isn’t yet the end of the AI bubble.
The “bubble” in AI is predicated on proprietary software that’s been oversold and underdelivered.
If I can outrun OpenAI’s super secret algorithm with 1/100th the physical resources, the $13B Microsoft handed Sam Altman’s company starts looking like burned capital.
And the way this blows up the reputation of AI hype-artists makes it harder for investors to be induced to send US firms money. Why not contract with Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence directly, rather than ask OpenAI to adopt a model that’s better than anything they’ve produced to date?
Great analogy
I really think GenAI is comparable to the internet in terms of what it will allow mankind in a couple of decades.
Lots of people thought the internet was a fad and saw no future for it …
Lots of techies loved the internet, built it, and were all early adopters. Lots of normies didn’t see the point.
With AI it’s pretty much the other way around: CEOs saying “we don’t need programmers, any more”, while people who understand the tech roll their eyes.
Back then the CEOs were babbling about information superhighways while tech rolled their eyes
I believe programming languages will become obsolete. You’ll still need professionals that will be experts in leading the machines but not nearly as hands on as presently. The same for a lot of professions that exist currently.
I like to compare GenAI to the assembly line when it was created, but instead of repetitive menial tasks, it’s repetitive mental tasks that it improves/performs.
Oh great you’re one of them. Look I can’t magically infuse tech literacy into you, you’ll have to learn to program and, crucially, understand how much programming is not about giving computers instructions.
Let’s talk in five years. There’s no point in discussing this right now. You’re set on what you believe you know and I’m set on what I believe I know.
And, piece of advice, don’t assume others lack tech literacy because they don’t agree with you, it just makes you look like a brat that can’t discuss things maturely and invites the other part to be a prick as well.
Especially because programming is quite fucking literally giving computers instructions, despite what you believe keyboard monkeys do. You wanker!
What? You think “developers” are some kind on mythical beings that possess the mystical ability of speaking to the machines in cryptic tongues?
They’re a dime a dozen, the large majority of “developers” are just cannon fodder that are not worth what they think they are.
Ironically, the real good ones probably brought about their demise.
Especially because programming is quite fucking literally giving computers instructions, despite what you believe keyboard monkeys do. You wanker!
What? You think “developers” are some kind on mythical beings that possess the mystical ability of speaking to the machines in cryptic tongues?
First off, you’re contradicting yourself: Is programming about “giving instructions in cryptic languages”, or not?
Then, no: Developers are mythical beings who possess the magical ability of turning vague gesturing full of internal contradictions, wishful thinking, up to right-out psychotic nonsense dreamt up by some random coke-head in a suit, into hard specifications suitable to then go into algorithm selection and finally into code. Typing shit in a cryptic language is the easy part, also, it’s not cryptic, it’s precise.
You must be a programmer. Can’t understand shit of what you’re told to do and then blame the client for “not knowing how it works”. Typical. Stereotypical even!
Read it again moron, or should I use an LLM to make it simpler for your keyboard monkey brain?
That’s not the way it works. And I’m not even against that.
It sill won’t work this way a few years later.
I’m not talking about this being a snap transition. It will take several years but I do think this tech will evolve in that direction.
I’ve been working with LLMs since month 1 and in these short 24 months things have progressed in a way that is mind boggling.
I’ve produced more and better than ever and we’re developing a product that improves and makes some repetitive “sweat shop” tasks regarding documentation a thing of the past for people. It really is cool.
In part we agree. However there are two things to consider.
For one, the llms are plateauing pretty much now. So they are dependant on more quality input. Which, basically, they replace. So perspecively imo the learning will not work to keep this up. (in other fields like nature etc there’s comparatively endless input for training, so it will keep on working there).
The other thing is, as we likely both agree, this is not intelligence. It has it’s uses. But you said to replace programming, which in my opinion will never work: were missing the critical intelligence element. It might be there at some point. Maybe llm will help there, maybe not, we might see. But for now we don’t have that piece of the puzzle and it will not be able to replace human work with (new) thought put into it.
Sure but you had the .com bubble but it was still useful. Same as AI in a big bubble right now doesn’t mean it won’t be useful.
Oh yes, there definitely is a bubble, but I don’t believe that means the tech is worthless, not even close to worthless.
I don’t know. In a lot of usecase AI is kinda crap, but there’s certain usecase where it’s really good. Honestly I don’t think people are giving enough thought to it’s utility in early-middle stages of creative works where an img2img model can take the basic composition from the artist, render it then the artist can go in and modify and perfect it for the final product. Also video games that use generative AI are going to be insane in about 10-15 years. Imagine an open world game where it generates building interiors and NPCs as you interact with them, even tying the stuff the NPCs say into the buildings they’re in, like an old sailer living in a house with lots of pictures of boats and boat models, or the warrior having tons of books about battle and decorative weapons everywhere all in throw away structures that would have previously been closed set dressing. Maybe they’ll even find sane ways to create quests on the fly that don’t feel overly cookie-cutter? Life changing? Of course not, but definitely a cool technology with a lot of potential
Also realistically I don’t think there’s going to be long term use for AI models that need a quarter of a datacenter just to run, and they’ll all get tuned down to what can run directly on a phone efficiently. Maybe we’ll see some new accelerators become common place maybe we won’t.
Was watching bbc news interview some American guy about this and wow they were really pushing that it’s no big deal and deepseek is way behind and a bit of a joke. Made claims they weren’t under cyber attack they just couldn’t handle having traffic etc.
Kinda making me root for China honestly.
deleted by creator
It still rely on nvidia hardware why would it trigger a sell-off? Also why all media are picking up this news? I smell something fishy here…
Here’s someone doing 200 tokens/s (for context, OpenAI doesn’t usually get above 100) on… A Raspberry Pi.
Yes, the “$75-$120 micro computer the size of a credit card” Raspberry Pi.
If all these AI models can be run directly on users devices, or on extremely low end hardware, who needs large quantities of top of the line GPUs?
Thank the fucking sky fairies actually, because even if AI continues to mostly suck it’d be nice if it didn’t swallow up every potable lake in the process. When this shit is efficient that makes it only mildly annoying instead of a complete shitstorm of failure.
While this is great, the training is where the compute is spent. The news is also about R1 being able to be trained, still on an Nvidia cluster but for 6M USD instead of 500
True, but training is one-off. And as you say, a factor 100x less costs with this new model. Therefore NVidia just saw 99% of their expected future demand for AI chips evaporate
Even if they are lying and used more compute, it’s obvious they managed to train it without access to the large amounts of the highest end chips due to export controls.
Conservatively, I think NVidia is definitely going to have to scale down by 50% and they will have to reduce prices by a lot, too, since VC and government billions will no longer be available to their customers.
True, but training is one-off. And as you say, a factor 100x less costs with this new model. Therefore NVidia just saw 99% of their expected future demand for AI chips evaporate
It might also lead to 100x more power to train new models.
I doubt that will be the case, and I’ll explain why.
As mentioned in this article,
SFT (supervised fine-tuning), a standard step in AI development, involves training models on curated datasets to teach step-by-step reasoning, often referred to as chain-of-thought (CoT). It is considered essential for improving reasoning capabilities. DeepSeek challenged this assumption by skipping SFT entirely, opting instead to rely on reinforcement learning (RL) to train the model. This bold move forced DeepSeek-R1 to develop independent reasoning abilities, avoiding the brittleness often introduced by prescriptive datasets.
This totally changes the way we think about AI training, which is why while OpenAI spent $100m on training GPT-4, running an expected 500,000 GPUs, DeepSeek used about 50,000, and likely spent that same roughly 10% of the cost.
So while operation, and even training, is now cheaper, it’s also substantially less compute intensive to train models.
And not only is there less data than ever to train models on that won’t cause them to get worse by regurgitating other worse quality AI-generated content, but even if additional datasets were scrapped entirely in favor of this new RL method, there’s a point at which an LLM is simply good enough.
If you need to auto generate a corpo-speak email, you can already do that without many issues. Reformat notes or user input? Already possible. Classify tickets by type? Done. Write a silly poem? That’s been possible since pre-ChatGPT. Summarize a webpage? The newest version of ChatGPT will probably do just as well as the last at that.
At a certain point, spending millions of dollars for a 1% performance improvement doesn’t make sense when the existing model just already does what you need it to do.
I’m sure we’ll see development, but I doubt we’ll see a massive increase in training just because the cost to run and train the model has gone down.
Thank you. Sounds like good news.
I’m not sure. That’s a very static view of the context.
While china has an AI advantage due to wider adoption, less constraints and overall bigger market, the US has higher tech, and more funds.
OpenAI, Anthropic, MS and especially X will all be getting massive amounts of backing and will reverse engineer and adopt whatever advantages R1 had. Which while there are some it’s still not a full spectrum competitor.
I see the is as a small correction that the big players will take advantage of to buy stock, and then pump it with state funds, furthering the gap and ignoring the Chinese advances.
Regardless, Nvidia always wins. They sell the best shovels. In any scenario the world at large still doesn’t have their Nvidia cluster, think Africa, Oceania, South America, Europe, SEA who doesn’t necessarily align with Chinese interests, India. Plenty to go around.
Extra funds are only useful if they can provide a competitive advantage.
Otherwise those investments will not have a positive ROI.
The case until now was built on the premise that US tech was years ahead and that AI had a strong moat due to high computer requirements for AI.
We now know that that isn’t true.
If high compute enables a significant improvement in AI, then that old case could become true again. But the prospects of such a reality happening and staying just got a big hit.
I think we are in for a dot-com type bubble burst, but it will take a few weeks to see if that’s gonna happen or not.
Maybe, but there is incentive to not let that happen, and I wouldn’t be surprised if “they” have unpublished tech that will be rushed out.
The ROI doesn’t matter, it wasn’t there yet it’s the potential for it. The Chinese AIs are also not there yet. The proposition is to reduce FTEs, regardless of cost, as long as cost is less.
While I see OpenAi and mostly startups and VC reliant companies taking a hit, Nvidia itself as the shovel maker will remain strong.
if, on a modern gaming pc, you can get breakneck speeds of 5 tokens per second, then actually inference is quite energy intensive too. 5 per second of anything is very slow
That’s becoming less true. The cost of inference has been rising with bigger models, and even more so with “reasoning models”.
Regardless, at the scale of 100M users, big one-off costs start looking small.
But I’d imagine any Chinese operator will handle scale much better? Or?
Maybe? Depends on what costs dominate operations. I imagine Chinese electricity is cheap but building new data centres is likely much cheaper % wise than countries like the US.
Wth?! Like seriously.
I assume they are running the smallest version of the model?
Still, very impressive.
i can also run it on my old pentium from 3 decades ago. I’d have to swap 4MiB of weights in and out constantly, it will be very very slow, but it will work.
Sure you can run it on low end hardware, but how does the performance (response time for a given prompt) compare to the other models, either local or as a service?
That set of tokens/s is the performance, or response time if you’d like to call it that. GPT-o1 tends to get anywhere from 33-60, whereas in the example I showed previously, a Raspberry Pi can do 200 on a distilled model.
Now, granted, a distilled model will produce worse performance than the full one, as seen in a benchmark comparison done by DeepSeek here (I’ve outlined the most distilled version of the newest DeepSeek model, which is likely the kind that is being run on the Raspberry Pi, albeit likely with some changes made by the author of that post, as well as OpenAI’s two most high-end models of a comparable distillation)
The gap in quality is relatively small for a model that is likely distilled far past what OpenAI’s “mini” model is, when you consider that even regular laptop/PC hardware is orders of magnitudes more powerful than a Raspberry Pi, or that an external AI accelerator can be bought for as little as $60, the quality in practice could be very comparable with even slightly less distillation, especially with fine-tuning for a given use case (e.g. a local version of DeepSeek in a code development platform would be fine-tuned specifically just to produce code-related results)
If you get into the region of only cloud-hosted instances of DeepSeek that are running at-scale on GPUs like OpenAI’s models are, the performance is only 1-2 percentage points off from OpenAI’s model, at about 3-6% of the cost, which effectively means 3-6% of the total amount of GPU power being paid for compared to the amount of GPU power OpenAI is paying for.
It requires only 5% of the same hardware that OpenAI needs to do the same thing. So that can mean less quantity of top end cards and it can also run on less powerful cards (not top of the line).
Should their models become standard or used more commonly, then nvidis sales will drop.
Doesn’t this just mean that now we can make models 20x more complex using the same hardware? There’s many more problems that advanced Deep Learning models could potentially solve that are far more interesting and useful than a chat bot.
I don’t see how this ends up bad for Nvidia in the long run.
Honestly none of this means anything at the moment. This might be some sort of calculated trickery from China to give Nvidia the finger, or Biden the finger, or a finger to Trump’s AI infrastructure announcement a few days ago, or some other motive.
Maybe this “selloff” is masterminded by the big wall street players (who work hand-in-hand with investor friendly media) to panic retail investors so they can snatch up shares at a discount.
What I do know is that “AI” is a very fast moving tech and shit that was true a few months ago might not be true tomorrow - no one has a crystal ball so we all just gotta wait and see.
There could be some trickery on the training side, i.e. maybe they spent way more than $6M to train it.
But it is clear that they did it without access to the infra that big tech has.
And on the run side, we can all verify how well it runs and people are also running it locally without internet access. There is no trickery there.
They are 20x cheaper than OpenAI if you run it on their servers and if you run it yourself, you only need a small investment in relatively affordable servers.
Give that statement to maybe not super techy investors, and that could spook them into the sell-off.
The way I understood it, it’s much more efficient so it should require less hardware.
Nvidia will sell that hardware, an obscene amount of it, and line will go up. But it will go up slower than nvidia expected because anything other than infinite and always accelerating growth means you’re not good at business.
Back in the day, that would tell me to buy green.
Of course, that was also long enough ago that you could just swap money from green to red every new staggered product cycle.
A year ago the price was $62, now after the fall it is $118. Stocks are volatile, what else is new? Pretty much non-news if you ask me.
And you should, generally we are amidst the internet world war. It’s not something fishy but digital rotten eggs thrown around by the hundreds.
The only way to remain sane is to ignore it and scroll on. There is no winning versus geopolitical behemoths as a lone internet adventurer. It’s impossible to tell what’s real and what isn’t
the first casualty of war is truthdeleted by creator
