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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#841

Post by Tostino »

Jlagreen wrote: post #744
aunty_helen wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's wrong. DeepSeek is a problem for Big Tech, not for Nvidia. Why? Imagine a small startup can do something better than Gemini or ChatGPT or Claude. So it can be disruptive. What can Big Tech do to avoid disruption? Buying every SINGLE GPU Nvidia produces! They have the money and they can use the GPUs in research. The worst nightmare of any Tech CEO is a startup which disrupts you so you have to either be faster…

You're wrong on deepseek. It's not distilled (actual r1 model is based off v3).

So, so many misinformed takes in this thread (not just you...)

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#842

Post by Jlagreen »

segmondy wrote: post #465
paxys wrote: post #341

IMO this is less about DeepSeek and more that Nvidia is essentially a bubble/meme stock that is divorced from the reality of finance and business. People/institutions who bought on nothing but hype are now panic selling. DeepSeek provided the spark, but that's all that was needed, just like how a vague rumor is enough to cause bank runs.

Nah, this is not about Nvidia being a bubble. This is about people forgetting that software will keep eating the world and Nvidia is a hardware company no matter how many times people say it's a software company and talk about Cuda. Yes, CUDA is their moat, but they are not a software company. See my post on reddit from 10 months ago about this happening. https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1c0je6h/comment..…

For 2 decades we were told how Apple will have to cut their margins due to competition and so on.

Today, it's simple. Apple has 25% unit share in smartphone markets and 75% profit share. Apple makes 3x the profit of ALL OTHER smartphone vendors combined.

And this is exactly where Nvidia's goal is. The AI compute market will grow, Nvidia will lose unit market share but Nvidia will retain their profit market share. Simple as that.

And by the way, Nvidia is way ahead in SW compared to alternatives. Most here have the DIY glasses on. But enterprises and businesses have different lenses. For those not being Tech they need secure and working solution with enterprise grades. Nvidia is among the few to offer this with Enterprise AI solutions (NeMo, NIMs, etc.). Nvidia's SW moat isn't CUDA, CUDA is an API for performance and stability. Nvidia's SW moat is in the frameworks for applications for many differnt industries and of course ALL Nvidia SW will require Nvidia HW.

A company using Nvidia enterprise SW solutions and consultancy will never use anything except Nvidia HW. Nvidia has a program with >10k AI startups being supported with free consulting and HW support. Nvidia is basically grooming their next generation customers by themselves.

You have no idea, many think Nvidia is only selling some chips and that's where they are wrong. Nvidia is a brand, an ecosystem and they will continue to grow from there. See gaming, much more standards and commodity in SW than AI SW. There is no CUDA, you can swap a Nvidia card with AMD card within a minute. So let me know, how come for 2 decades that Nvidia has continously 80-95% market share?

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#843

Post by saagarjha »

flakeoil wrote: post #803
giantrobot wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nvidia loses it's biggest moat and ability to monopolize the tech, CUDA isn't enough CUDA is plenty for right now. AMD can't/won't get their act together with GPU software and drivers. Intel isn't in much better of a position than AMD and has a host of other problems. It's also unlikely the "let's just glue a thousand ARM cores together" hardware will work as planned and still needs the software layer. CUDA won't b…

Someone commented somewhere above that deepseek avoided using CUDA. So it means you can achieve very good results without Nvidia's CUDA. "They skipped CUDA and instead used PTX which is a lower level instruction set"

CUDA in this case is the ecosystem, not the programming language.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#844

Post by Satam »

ludvigk wrote: post #806
cultofmetatron wrote: post #791

I dont' know what the surprise is here. the human brain consumes about 20 watts. literally a rounding error compared to what chatgpt uses. so we already know that there was plenty of room on the table to improve. incidentally, I love these kinds of market crashes. just moved a big chunk of my savings account into stocks last night :). Buy and hold. dont' sell during a dip lol

Why do you think the human brain and chatgpt are in any way related?

Because LLMs are based on the abstract ideas of neural nets from brains. Say what you wish, but some problems were completely unsolvable before we adopted this paradigm. On some level, we must've gotten some ideas close to the right ballpark.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#845

Post by Jlagreen »

spott wrote: post #539
energy123 wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a cookie cutter comment that appears to have been copy pasted from a thread about Gamestop or something. DeepSeek R1 allegedly being almost 50x more compute efficient isn't just a "vague rumor". You do this community a disservice by commenting before understanding what investors are thinking at the current moment.

I wonder where they got 50… llama405 cost like 60M, which puts deepseek at closer to 10x…

is llama405 a distilled model like DeepSeek or a trained frontier model? I honestly ask because I haven't researched but that's important to know before one compares.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#846

Post by verytrivial »

Is there evidence for the claim that the training was that much cheaper? Or is is 'apparent' by inspection of the verified ingestion architecture?

I can't seem to find any evience beyond the team's statements. What have I missed?

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#847

Post by WJW »

menaerus wrote: post #810
wbsun wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why this is not obvious to many people: tech and stock trading are totally two different things, why on earth a tech expert is expected to know trading at all? Imagining how ridiculous it would be if a computer science graduate will also automatically get a financial degree from college even though no financial class has been taken.

People developing statistical models that are excercising the financial market at scale are the quants. These people don't come from financial degree background.

By and large they don't come from a software development background either though. It's all math and physics PhDs.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#848

Post by Jlagreen »

jiggawatts wrote: post #500
acchow wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the SOTA models basically all suck today. If people don’t think they suck, definitely in 1 year they’ll look back and consider those older models unusably bad

I recently went to the LLM chat arena and tried my "test input" against the latest frontier models that GPT 3 failed on. This test snippet simply repeats the same four-letter word in a paragraph many times using all of its various possible meanings simultaneously. The request to the AI is to put the meaning of each usage of the word next to it in brackets. None of the frontier models can do this perfectly. They all s…

So the focus is trying to find things where LLMs are bad instead of trying to find out where they are good and find applications for that?

That's basically like trying to embarass a IQ 180 student on emotional intelligence.

But I guess that's human nature to expect a machine to be 100x better than humanity on first try.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#849

Post by menaerus »

WJW wrote: post #847
menaerus wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People developing statistical models that are excercising the financial market at scale are the quants. These people don't come from financial degree background.

By and large they don't come from a software development background either though. It's all math and physics PhDs.

Exactly. My point was rather that (formal) financial degree background isn't quite the necessity. Quite the contrary in practice I think.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#850

Post by thrance »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #791

I dont' know what the surprise is here. the human brain consumes about 20 watts. literally a rounding error compared to what chatgpt uses. so we already know that there was plenty of room on the table to improve. incidentally, I love these kinds of market crashes. just moved a big chunk of my savings account into stocks last night :). Buy and hold. dont' sell during a dip lol

Maybe not that pertinent, but I remember someone computing joules per word written in humans vs chatgpt and found the former to be a bit higher.
Post reply on HN