Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#321

Post by Balgair »

LittleTimothy wrote: post #117
junon wrote: post #78

Not sure what the fuss is. I tried Deepseek earlier today for the first time and it was even worse than o1 when it came to reasoning skills and following my requests for how I wanted to engage with it. o1 at least gives it to me straight. When I ask it to engage in more back and forth before assuming what I'm after, it tends to follow through. Deepseek seemed immediately eager to (very slowly) feed me a bunch of made…

The excitement isn't the capabilities of the model, it's how efficiently it was created. One of the major lessons in AI in the last couple of years was that scale mattered - you would want to throw more and more compute at a problem and that has turned into incredible share prices for Nvidia and incredible investments in data centre and energy generation. If it turns out that actually we didn't need quite such incred…

Essentially, Deepseek is showing that there is a lot of room for improvement with AIs. To paraphrase Orwell, AIs are a lot more like Alarm Clocks and a lot less like Manhattan Projects.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#322

Post by bee_rider »

tivert wrote: post #268
pas wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's legally a grey area. It might even be fair use. Facts themselves are not protected by copyright. If there's no unauthorized reproduction/copying then it's not a copyright issue. (Maybe it's a violation of terms of services of course.)

> Facts themselves are not protected by copyright. But don't LLMs encode language, not facts? > If there's no unauthorized reproduction/copying then it's not a copyright issue. I'm pretty sure copyright holders have gotten the models to regurgitate their copyright works verbatim, or nearly so.

I mean, it is IP law, this stuff was all invented to help big corps support their business models. So, it is impossible to predict what any of it means until we see who is willing to pay more to get their desired laws enforced. We’ll have to wait for more precedent to be purchased before us little people can figure out what the laws are.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#325

Post by fspeech »

bee_rider wrote: post #263

ASML plunge indicates a hysterical/irrational component to the response, right? They aren’t going anywhere. If it turns out training is easier than expected, they make the devices that make the devices that do inference too… If the field is going to produce anything useful, cheap training gets us there faster.

You need to also look at valuation and how much growth justifies that valuation.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#326

Post by hackingonempty »

pas wrote: post #246
lmm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the western AI companies trained on illegally obtained data, they barely even bother to deny it. This is an industry where lies are normalised. (Not to contradict your point about this specific number)

It's legally a grey area. It might even be fair use. Facts themselves are not protected by copyright. If there's no unauthorized reproduction/copying then it's not a copyright issue. (Maybe it's a violation of terms of services of course.)

Copies are made in the formation of the training corpus and in the memory of the computers during training so there's definitely a copyright issue. Could be fair use though.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#328

Post by physicsguy »

plaidfuji wrote: post #174
gitfan86 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has changed is the perception that people like OpenAI/MSFT would have an edge on the competition because of their huge datacenters full of NVDA hardware. That is no longer true. People now believe that you can build very capable AI applications for far less money. So the perception is that the big guys no longer have an edge. Tesla had already proven that to be wrong. Tesla's Hardware 3 is a 6 year old design, a…

I mean, I think they still do have an edge - ChatGPT is a great app and has strong consumer recognition already, very hard to displace.. and MSFT has a major installed base of enterprise customers who cannot readily switch cloud / productivity suite providers. So I guess they still have an edge it’s just nore of a traditional edge.

Microsoft don't have to use OpenAI though, they could swap that out underneath for the business applications.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#329

Post by physicsguy »

Palmik wrote: post #291

Massive overreaction in my opinion (not financial advice). People are forgetting how much compute is being used for inference. This is going to be further accelerated: - Reasoning models are going to generate orders of magnitude more tokens. - Synthetic an augmented data is more and more prevalent, and if you need to process pre-training scale dataset, you will need a lot of inference. - etc.

Distillations are showing (and have been for a while) though that you don't necessarily need big hardware for decent inference. If that's the case, and you can run it on your Macbook trivially or even your smartphone.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#330

Post by grajaganDev »

echelon wrote: post #324
grajaganDev wrote: post #323

This could be an extinction level event for some VCs.

Only if their portcos don't build products people buy. Making a pure-research, foundation model company is silly. Make a product company that sells products.

Google and Microsoft both bundled their AI offering into their office suites because they weren't getting traction as an add-on.

Startups don't have that option.

Post reply on HN