- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/53805638
You must log in or # to comment.
Good. Nvidia has grown greedy and fat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ROFL 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 eat shit, Huang
i made some good money on that inevitable rebound. 30% gains in a day! thanks Huang
Try asking DeepSeek something about Xi Jinping. "Sorry, it’s beyond my current scope’ :-) Wondering why even it cannot cite his official party biography :-)
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.
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.
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.
\ 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
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
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…
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.
I really hope this is the beginning of a massive correction on AI hype.
It’s a reaction to thinking China has better AI, not thinking AI has less value.
Or from the sounds of it, doing things more efficiently.
Fewer cycles required, less hardware required.Maybe this was an inevitability, if you cut off access to the fast hardware, you create a natural advantage for more efficient systems.
That’s generally how tech goes though. You throw hardware at the problem until it works, and then you optimize it to run on laptops and eventually phones. Usually hardware improvements and software optimizations meet somewhere in the middle.
Look at photo and video editing, you used to need a workstation for that, and now you can get most of it on your phone. Surely AI is destined to follow the same path, with local models getting more and more robust until eventually the beefy cloud services are no longer required.
China really has nothing to do with it, it could have been anyone. It’s a reaction to realizing that GPT4-equivalent AI models are dramatically cheaper to train than previously thought.
It being China is a noteable detail because it really drives the nail in the coffin for NVIDIA, since China has been fenced off from having access to NVIDIA’s most expensive AI GPUs that were thought to be required to pull this off.
It also makes the USA gov look extremely foolish to have made major foreign policy and relationship sacrifices in order to try to delay China by a few years, when it’s January and China has already caught up, those sacrifices did not pay off, in fact they backfired and have benefited China and will allow them to accelerate while hurting USA tech/AI companies
Oh US has been doing this kind of thing for decades! This isn’t new.
It’s a reaction to thinking China has better AI
I don’t think this is the primary reason behind Nvidia’s drop. Because as long as they got a massive technological lead it doesn’t matter as much to them who has the best model, as long as these companies use their GPUs to train them.
The real change is that the compute resources (which is Nvidia’s product) needed to create a great model suddenly fell of a cliff. Whereas until now the name of the game was that more is better and scale is everything.
China vs the West (or upstart vs big players) matters to those who are investing in creating those models. So for example Meta, who presumably spends a ton of money on high paying engineers and data centers, and somehow got upstaged by someone else with a fraction of their resources.
I really don’t believe the technological lead is massive.
Looking at the market cap of Nvidia vs their competitors the market belives it is, considering they just lost more than AMD/Intel and the likes are worth combined and still are valued at $2.9 billion.
And with technology i mean both the performance of their hardware and the software stack they’ve created, which is a big part of their dominance.
Yeah. I don’t believe market value is a great indicator in this case. In general, I would say that capital markets are rational at a macro level, but not micro. This is all speculation/gambling.
My guess is that AMD and Intel are at most 1 year behind Nvidia when it comes to tech stack. “China”, maybe 2 years, probably less.
However, if you can make chips with 80% performance at 10% price, its a win. People can continue to tell themselves that big tech always will buy the latest and greatest whatever the cost. It does not make it true. I mean, it hasn’t been true for a really long time. Google, Meta and Amazon already make their own chips. That’s probably true for DeepSeek as well.
Yeah. I don’t believe market value is a great indicator in this case. In general, I would say that capital markets are rational at a macro level, but not micro. This is all speculation/gambling.
I have to concede that point to some degree, since i guess i hold similar views with Tesla’s value vs the rest of the automotive Industry. But i still think that the basic hirarchy holds true with nvidia being significantly ahead of the pack.
My guess is that AMD and Intel are at most 1 year behind Nvidia when it comes to tech stack. “China”, maybe 2 years, probably less.
Imo you are too optimistic with those estimations, particularly with Intel and China, although i am not an expert in the field.
As i see it AMD seems to have a quite decent product with their instinct cards in the server market on the hardware side, but they wish they’d have something even close to CUDA and its mindshare. Which would take years to replicate. Intel wish they were only a year behind Nvidia. And i’d like to comment on China, but tbh i have little to no knowledge of their state in GPU development. If they are “2 years, probably less” behind as you say, then they should have something like the rtx 4090, which was released end of 2022. But do they have something that even rivals the 2000 or 3000 series cards?
However, if you can make chips with 80% performance at 10% price, its a win. People can continue to tell themselves that big tech always will buy the latest and greatest whatever the cost. It does not make it true.
But the issue is they all make their chips at the same manufacturer, TSMC, even Intel in the case of their GPUs. So they can’t really differentiate much on manufacturing costs and are also competing on the same limited supply. So no one can offer 80% of performance at 10% price, or even close to it. Additionally everything around the GPU (datacenters, rack space, power useage during operation etc.) also costs, so it is only part of the overall package cost and you also want to optimize for your limited space. As i understand it datacenter building and power delivery for them is actually another limiting factor right now for the hyperscalers.
Google, Meta and Amazon already make their own chips. That’s probably true for DeepSeek as well.
Google yes with their TPUs, but the others all use Nvidia or AMD chips to train. Amazon has their Graviton CPUs, which are quite competitive, but i don’t think they have anything on the GPU side. DeepSeek is way to small and new for custom chips, they evolved out of a hedge fund and just use nvidia GPUs as more or less everyone else.
Thanks for high effort reply.
The Chinese companies probably use SIMC over TSMC from now on. They were able to do low volume 7 nm last year. Also, Nvidia and “China” are not on the same spot on the tech s-curve. It will be much cheaper for China (and Intel/AMD) to catch up, than it will be for Nvidia to maintain the lead. Technological leaps and reverse engineering vs dimishing returns.
Also, expect that the Chinese government throws insane amounts of capital at this sector right now. So unless Stargate becomes a thing (though I believe the Chinese invest much much more), there will not be fair competition (as if that has ever been a thing anywhere anytime). China also have many more tools, like optional command economy. The US has nothing but printing money and manipulating oligarchs on a broken market.
I’m not sure about 80/10 exactly of course, but it is in that order of magnitude, if you’re willing to not run newest fancy stuff. I believe the MI300X goes for approx 1/2 of the H100 nowadays and is MUCH better on paper. We don’t know the real performance because of NDA (I believe). It used to be 1/4. If you look at VRAM per $, the ratio is about 1/10 for the 1/4 case. Of course, the price gap will shrink at the same rate as ROCm matures and customers feel its safe to use AMD hardware for training.
So, my bet is max 2 years for “China”. At least when it comes to high-end performance per dollar. Max 1 year for AMD and Intel (if Intel survive).
From what I understand, it’s more that it takes a lot less money to train your own llms with the same powers with this one than to pay license to one of the expensive ones. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong
It’s about cheap Chinese AI
I wouldn’t be surprised if China spent more on AI development than the west did, sure here we spent tens of billions while China only invested a few million but that few million was actually spent on the development while out of the tens of billions all but 5$ was spent on bonuses and yachts.
Does it still need people spending huge amounts of time to train models?
After doing neural networks, fuzzy logic, etc. in university, I really question the whole usability of what is called “AI” outside niche use cases.
If inputText = "hello" then Respond.text("hello there") ElseIf inputText (...) ```Ah, see, the mistake you’re making is actually understanding the topic at hand.
😂
Exactly. Galaxy brains on Wall Street realizing that nvidia’s monopoly pricing power is coming to an end. This was inevitable - China has 4x as many workers as the US, trained in the best labs and best universities in the world, interns at the best companies, then, because of racism, sent back to China. Blocking sales of nvidia chips to China drives them to develop their own hardware, rather than getting them hooked on Western hardware. China’s AI may not be as efficient or as good as the West right now, but it will be cheaper, and it will get better.
It’s coming, Pelosi sold her shares like a month ago.
It’s going to crash, if not for the reasons she sold for, as more and more people hear she sold, they’re going to sell because they’ll assume she has insider knowledge due to her office.
Which is why politicians (and spouses) shouldn’t be able to directly invest into individual companies.
Even if they aren’t doing anything wrong, people will follow them and do what they do. Only a truly ignorant person would believe it doesn’t have an effect on other people.
It’s coming, Pelosi sold her shares like a month ago.
Yeah but only cause she was really disappointed with the 5000 series lineup. Can you blame her for wanting real rasterization improvements?
xx_Pelosi420_xx doesn’t settle for incremental upgrades
Everyone’s disappointed with the 5000 series…
They’re giving up on improving rasterazation and focusing on “ai cores” because they’re using gpus to pay for the research into AI.
“Real” core count is going down on the 5000 series.
It’s not what gamers want, but they’re counting on people just buying the newest before asking if newer is really better. It’s why they’re already cutting 4000 series production, they just won’t give people the option.
I think everything under 4070 super is already discontinued
Pelosi says AI frames are fake frames.
She thought ray tracing was anti-wrinkle treatment
If anything, this will accelerate the AI hype, as big leaps forward have been made without increased resource usage.
Something is got to give. You can’t spend ~$200 billion annually on capex and get a mere $2-3 billion return on this investment.
I understand that they are searching for a radical breakthrough “that will change everything”, but there is also reasons to be skeptical about this (e.g. documents revealing that Microsoft and OpenAI defined AGI as something that can get them $100 billion in annual revenue as opposed to some specific capabilities).
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?
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.
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…
…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
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”.
-
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.
There is no bubble. You’re confusing gpt with ai
Good. Let’s keep this ball rolling.
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
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.
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.
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
My understanding is that DeepSeek still used Nvidia just older models and way more efficiently, which was remarkable. I hope to tinker with the opensource stuff at least with a little Twitch chat bot for my streams I was already planning to do with OpenAI. Will be even more remarkable if I can run this locally.
However this is embarassing to the western companies working on AI and especially with the $500B announcement of Stargate as it proves we don’t need as high end of an infrastructure to achieve the same results.
My understanding is that DeepSeek still used Nvidia just older models
That’s the funniest part here, the sell off makes no sense. So what if some companies are better at utilizing AI than others, it all runs in the same hardware. Why sell stock in the hardware company? (Besides the separate issue of it being totally overvalued at the moment)
This would be kind of like if a study showed that American pilots were more skilled than European pilots, so investors sold stock in airbus… Either way, the pilots still need planes to fly…
Perhaps the stocks were massively overvalued and any negative news was going to start this sell off regardless of its actual impact?
That is my theory anyway.
Yeah, I think that’s a pretty solid theory. Makes more sense when looked at that way.
Are there any guides to running it locally?
I’m using Ollama to run my LLM’s. Going to see about using it for my twitch chat bot too
It’s really not. This is the ai equivalent of the vc repurposing usa bombs that didn’t explode when dropped.
Their model is the differentiator here but they had to figure out something more efficient in order to overcome the hardware shortcomings.
The us companies will soon outpace this by duping the model and running it on faster hw
Throw more hardware and power at it. Build more power plants so we can use AI.
Great, a stock sale.
Finally a proper good open source model as all tech should be
Nice. Happy news today
nvidia falling doesn’t make much sense to me, GPUs are still needed to run the model. Unless Nvidia is involved in its own AI model or something?
DeepSeek proved you didn’t need anywhere near as much hardware to train or run an even better AI model
Imagine what would happen to oil prices if a manufacturer comes out with a full ice car that can run 1000 miles per gallon… Instead of the standard American 3 miles per 1.5 gallons hehehe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil.
Energy demand is infinite and so is the demand for computing power because humans always want to do MORE.
Yes but that’s not the point… If you can buy a house for $1000 nobody would buy a similar house for $500000
Eventually the field would even out and maybe demand would surpass current levels, but for the time being, Nvidia’s offer seem to be a giant surplus and speculators will speculate
