Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

Post by aunty_helen » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 4:15 AM UTC

skellington wrote: post #598

ezoe wrote: post #584

I really don't understand the market thinks Nvidia is losing its value. If DeepSeek reduce the required computational resources, we can pour more computational resources to improve it further. There's nothing bad about more resources.

Markets aren't rational. NVidia is currently a hype stock which means LOTS of speculation, probably with lots of leverage. So, the people who have made large gains and/or are leveraged are highly incentivized to panic sell on any PERCEIVED bad news. It doesn't even matter if the bad news will materially impact sales. What matters is how the other gamblers will react to the news and getting in front of them. :)

Post by egillie » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 4:17 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #550

kd913 wrote: post #394

The biggest discussion I have been on having this is the implications on Deepseek for say the RoI H100. Will a sudden spike in available GPUs and reduction in demand (from efficient GPU usage) dramatically shock the cost per hour to rent a GPU. This I think is the critical value for measuring the investment value for Blackwell now. The price for a H100 per hour has gone from the peak of $8.42 to about $1.80. A H100 c…

Why is there this implicit assumption that more efficient training/inference will reduce GPU demand? It seems more likely - based on historical precedent in the computing industry - that demand will expand to fill the available hardware. We can do more inference and more training on fewer GPUs. That doesn’t mean we need to stop buying GPUs. Unless people think we’re already doing the most training/inference we’ll eve…

Post by scarface_74 » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 4:20 AM UTC

jcgrillo wrote: post #522

elihu wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jevon's paradox would imply that there's good reason to think that demand for shovels will increase. AI doesn't seem to be one of those things where society as a whole will say, "we have enough of that; we don't need any more". (Many individual people are already saying that, but they aren't the people buying the GPUs for this in the first place. Steam engines weren't universally popular either when they were introdu…

> AI doesn't seem to be one of those things where society as a whole will say, "we have enough of that; we don't need any more". Really? Has anyone made a useful, commercially successful product with it yet?

Post by Jensson » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 4:23 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #568

Jensson wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically most compute went to run games in peoples homes, because companies didn't see a need to run that much analytics. I don't see why that wouldn't happen now as well, there is a limit to how much value you can get out of this, since they aren't AGI yet.

This just seems like a very bold statement to make in the first two years of LLMs. There are so many workflows where they are either not yet embedded at all, or only involved in a limited capacity. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the areas for growth. And that’s before even considering the growth in adoption. I think it’s a safe bet that LLM usage will proliferate in terms of both number of users, and number…

Post by golergka » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 4:24 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #608

eigenvalue wrote: post #567

90% of the comments in this thread make it clear that knowing about technology does not in any way qualify someone to think correctly about markets and equity valuations.

I think you’re wrong and Wallstreet got Deepseek’s impact wrong. You say DeepSeek should decrease Nvidia demand. Wallstreet agreed today. I say DeepSeek should increase Nvidia’s demand due to Jevon’s Paradox.