Greater efficiency of light bulbs has led to more light bulb use, not less. More efficient training of LLMs could just as likely lead to more chip use, not less.
But did it not lead to net less electricity used for lighting?
Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
711–720 of 1001 posts
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#712DeepSeek direct competitors[0] are OpenAI's models, Meta's Llama, Anthropic's Claude etc.
NVIDIA isn't even DeepSeek indirect competitor. And no investor/expert in their right mind would compare a software company to a hardware company.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#713So the day this happened I didn't eat all day which was a weird thing. I don't know just one of those weird coincidences for no reason. Tomorrow I won't eat all day again and see what happens.
Anyway I'm homeless so the not eating all day maybe kinda possibly having something to do with wiping out 600 billion dollars in stock market valuation just on the off chance that it might based on nothing more than wishful thinking?
Nope. Not eating tomorrow. Wonder what will happen.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#714Greater efficiency of light bulbs has led to more light bulb use, not less. More efficient training of LLMs could just as likely lead to more chip use, not less.
But did it not lead to net less electricity used for lighting?
I'd wager there is more light today than before LEDs were invented. I'd wager a lot in fact.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. :)
Another thing, the markets had priced in X demand scaling @ ~145 and suddenly it's X/30 demand scaling and therefore the price should drop.
True, but current price isn't based on fundamentals, it's based on hype-value.
nVidia is going to be a very volatile stock for years to come.
I don't see deepseek changing nvidia's short term growth potential though. Efficiencies in training were always inevitable, but more GPU still equals smarter AI....probably.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#71690% 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.
"knowing about technology" ... filter out the javascript programmers and that leaves about 15% of HN.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jevon’s Paradox I've now seen this referenced two dozen times today which is well up from the 0 times I've seen it over the past year. Is there some recent article referencing it that everyone is regurgitating?
Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, but also because everyone is writing about GPU demand and Jevon's paradox is an easy way to express the idea in a trite keyword.
[deleted]
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#718Here’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.
> If training and inference just got 40x more efficient
Did training and inference just get 40x more efficient, or just training? They trained a model with impressive outputs on a limited number of GPUs, but DeepSeek is still a big model that requires a lot of resources to run. Moreover, which costs more, training a model once or using it for inference across a hundred million people multiple times a day for a year? It was always the second one, and doing the training cheaper makes it even more so.
But this implies that we could use those same resources to train even bigger models, right? Except that you then have the same problem. You have a bigger model, maybe it's better, but if you've made inference cost linearly more because of the size and the size is now 40x bigger, you now need that much more compute for inference.
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#71990% 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.
A minor quibble: It’s Jevons Paradox - the last name of the economist who formulated it is “Jevons”
Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Jevon’s Paradox I've now seen this referenced two dozen times today which is well up from the 0 times I've seen it over the past year. Is there some recent article referencing it that everyone is regurgitating?
Satya Nadella posted about it on Twitter. https://x.com/satyanadella/status/1883753899255046301
Which seems pretty self-serving, and at the very least, premature.