631–640 of 1001 posts
NVIDIA sells shovels to the gold rush. One miner (Liang Wenfeng), who has previously purchased at least 10,000 A100 shovels... has a "side project" where they figured out how to dig really well with a shovel and shared their secrets. The gold rush, wether real or a bubble is still there! NVIDA will still sell every shovel they can manufacture, as soon as it is available in inventory. Fortune 100 companies will still…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Not even Microsoft Copilot 365 had a successful launch. The same happened with Apple Intelligence. People talk like the end user demand part of the equation is really solved when invoking an Econ 101 magical interpretation of the Law of Supply and Demand or Jevons Padadox.
Deep integration into iOS won't be tacked on in a rush to market addition to OS.
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…
I also dont get how this is bearish for NVDA. Before this, small to mid companies would give up on finetuning their own model because openai is just so much better and cheaper. Now deepseek SOTA model gives them much better quality baseline model to train on. Wouldn't more people want to RAG on top of deepseek? or some startups accountant would run the numbers and figures we can just inference the shit out of deepsee…
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.
Training is a huge component of Nvidia's projected growth. Inference is actually much more competitive, but training is almost exclusively Nvidia's domain. If Deepseek's claims are true, that would represent a 10x reduction in cost for training for similar models (6 million for r1 vs 60 million for something like o1).
It is absolutely not the case in ML that "there is nothing bad about more resources". There is something very bad - cost. And another bad thing - depreciation. And finally, another bad thing - the fact that new chips and approaches are coming out all the time, so if you are on older hardware you might be missing out. Training complex models for cheaper will allow companies to potentially re-allocate away from hardware into software (ie, hiring more engineering to build more models, instead of less engineers and more hardware to build less models).
Finally, there is a giant elephant in the room that it is very unclear if throwing more resources at LLM training will net better results. There are diminishing returns in terms of return on investment in training, especially with LLM-style use cases. It is actually very non-obvious right now how pouring more compute specifically at training will result in better LLMs.
NVIDIA sells shovels to the gold rush. One miner (Liang Wenfeng), who has previously purchased at least 10,000 A100 shovels... has a "side project" where they figured out how to dig really well with a shovel and shared their secrets. The gold rush, wether real or a bubble is still there! NVIDA will still sell every shovel they can manufacture, as soon as it is available in inventory. Fortune 100 companies will still…
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…
I argue it doesn't apply to generative AI because its outputs are mostly no good, have no utility, or are good but only in limited commercial contexts.
In the first case, a machine that produces garbage faster and cheaper doesn't mean demand for the garbage will increase. And in the second case, there aren't enough buyers for high-quality computer-generated pictures of toilets to meaningfully boost demand for Nvidia's products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but NVIDIA's amazing digging technique that could only be accomplished with NVIDIA shovels is now irrelevant. Meaning there are more people selling shovels for the gold rush
What about DeepSeek negates NVidia’s advantages over other GPU vendors?
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.
If their claims were true, DeepSeek would increase the demand for GPU. It's so obvious that I don't know why we even need a name to describe this scenario (I guess Jeven's Paradox just sounds cool).
The only issue is that whether it would make a competitor to Nvidia viable. My bet is no, but the market seems to have betted yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also dont get how this is bearish for NVDA. Before this, small to mid companies would give up on finetuning their own model because openai is just so much better and cheaper. Now deepseek SOTA model gives them much better quality baseline model to train on. Wouldn't more people want to RAG on top of deepseek? or some startups accountant would run the numbers and figures we can just inference the shit out of deepsee…
Not sure if I believe it’s bearish, but the PC made computers cheaper and demand exploded, yet wasn’t very good for IBM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> I say DeepSeek should increase Nvidia’s demand due to Jevon’s Paradox. If their claims were true, DeepSeek would increase the demand for GPU. It's so obvious that I don't know why we even need a name to describe this scenario (I guess Jeven's Paradox just sounds cool). The only issue is that whether it would make a competitor to Nvidia viable. My bet is no, but the market seems to have betted yes.
If training and inference just got 40x more efficient, but OpenAI and co. still have the same compute resources, once they’ve baked in all the DeepSeek improvements, we’re about to find out very quickly whether 40x the compute delivers 40x the performance / output quality, or if output quality has ceased to be compute-bound.