Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

Post by xbmcuser » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 5:39 AM UTC

plaidfuji wrote: post #640

Here’s a take I haven’t seen yet: 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.

Post by MadnessASAP » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 5:41 AM UTC

scarface_74 wrote: post #615

jcgrillo wrote: post #522

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?

ChatGPT has over $10 million paying subscriber. No I am not counting the people using the API programmatically

Post by rsanek » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 5:44 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #641

fldskfjdslkfj wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The increase in efficiency is usually accompanied with the process of commoditization as stuff get cheaper to develop, which is very bad news for nvidia. If you dont need the super high end chips than Nvidia loses it's biggest moat and ability to monopolize the tech, CUDA isn't enough.

Anthropic doesn’t train on Nvidia as far as I know. Google doesn’t either. I don’t see how DeepSeek changes things. By the way, DeepSeek trains on Nvidia.

Post by jjk166 » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #660

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…

When you get more marginal product from an input, it's expected you buy more of that input. But at some point, if the marginal product gets high enough, the world needs not as many, because money spent on other inputs/factors pays off more. This is a classic problem with extrapolation. Making people more efficient through the use of AI will tend to increase employment... until it doesn't and employment goes off a cli…

Post by sdenton4 » Tue, Jan 28, 2025, 5:49 AM UTC

atrus wrote: post #595

01100011 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the models are going to get better/smaller/faster overtime reducing our reliance on the GPU Yes, because we've seen that with other software. I no longer want a GPU for my computer because I play games from the 90s and the CPU has grown powerful enough to suffice... except that's not the case at all. Software grew in complexity and quality with available compute resources and we have no reason to think "AI" will be…

Honestly, you'd be shocked at how much gaming you can get done on the integrated gpus that are just shoved in these days. Sure, you won't be playing the most graphically demanding things, but think of platforms like the Switch, or games like Stardew. You can easily go without a dedicated GPU and still have a plethora of games. And as for AI, there's probably so much room for improvement on the software side that it w…