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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#861

Post by d1sxeyes »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #801
sek wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crash is absolutely rational; the cascading effect highlights the missing moat for companies like OpenAI. Without a moat, no investor will provide these companies with the billions that fueled most of the demand. This demand was essential for NVIDIA to squeeze such companies with incredible profit margins. NVIDIA was overvalued before, and this correction is entirely justified. The larger impact of DeepSeek is mo…

It has been clear for a while that one of two things is true. 1) AI stuff isn't really worth trillions, in which case Nvidia is overvalued. 2) AI stuff is really worth trillions, in which case there will be no moat, because you can cross any moat for that amount of money, e.g. you could recreate CUDA from scratch for far less than a trillion dollars and in fact Nvidia didn't spend anywhere near that much to create it…

One thing you’re missing is that there’s nothing that says the value must correct. There are at least two very good reasons it might not: Nvidia now has huge amounts of money to invest in developing new technologies, exploring other ideas, and the other is that very little of the stock market is about the actual value of the company itself, but speculation. If people think it will go up, they buy it, reducing supply, and driving up the price. If people think it will go down, they sell it, increasing supply and driving down the price. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy on a large scale, and completely secondary to the actual business.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#863

Post by nejsjsjsbsb »

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.

That's a take I've seen in many HN comments

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#864

Post by timeon »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #747
optimiz3 wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone can say things that sound smart. When it comes to markets the only thing that matters is if your portfolio was green or red.

Since when gambling on a RNG output makes you smart?

It seems to me like both of you are saying same thing.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#865

Post by shawabawa3 »

koolhead17 wrote: post #636
dragonwriter wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about DeepSeek negates NVidia’s advantages over other GPU vendors?

What is stopping huawei or other Chinese vendors to make chips on deepseek specification and 1/10th NVIDIA cost and mass market it?

> What is stopping huawei or other Chinese vendors to make chips on deepseek specification

What is "deepseek specification"? Deepseek was trained on NVDA chips. If chinese vendors could build chips as good as NVDA it wouldn't have such a dominant position already, that hasn't changed

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#867

Post by aurareturn »

camillomiller wrote: post #820
sek wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crash is absolutely rational; the cascading effect highlights the missing moat for companies like OpenAI. Without a moat, no investor will provide these companies with the billions that fueled most of the demand. This demand was essential for NVIDIA to squeeze such companies with incredible profit margins. NVIDIA was overvalued before, and this correction is entirely justified. The larger impact of DeepSeek is mo…

This is partially why Apple is the one that stands to gain more, and it showed. Their "small models, on device" approach can only be perfected with something like DeepSeek, and they're not exposed to NVIDIA pricing, nor have to prove investors that their approach is still valid.

Until AGI removes the need for iOS.

Apple is not immune to AI disruption.

The Rabbit R1 was a scam but the concept was the right approach. It was just 5 years too early.

You don’t need an iPhone with AGI. You just need a 5G device with a screen, connected to an AGI.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#868

Post by z3phyr »

gdiamos wrote: post #795
gloflo wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does line go up forever?

It goes up at least until LLMs match humans - ie until an LLM can write Windows

I want the LLM to decide not to do anything, or write a new OS.

Whenever I prompt: "Do not do anything"

It always does .

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#869

Post by aurareturn »

sidkshatriya wrote: post #854
aurareturn wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the training side, there will be less demand for nvidia GPUs as meta, google, microsoft etc. extract efficiencies with the GPUs they already have given the embarrasing success of DeepSeek. Now, China might have been another insatiable market for nvidia but the export controls have ensured that it wont be. Why? If DeepSeek made training 10x more efficient, just train a 10x bigger model. The end goal is AGI.

You are assuming that a 10x bigger model will be 10x better or will bring us close to AGI. It might be too unweildy to do inference on. Or the gain in performance maybe minor and more scientific thought needs to go into the model before it can reap the reward with more training. Scientific breakthroughts sometimes take time.

I’m not assuming 10x bigger will yield 10x better. We have scaling laws that can tell you more.

But I find it bizarre that you made the conclusion that AI has stopped scaling because DeepSeek optimized the heck out of the sanctioned GPUs they had. Weird.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#870

Post by rTX5CMRXIfFG »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #858
photonthug wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Systems, it’s all about systems thinking. It is absolutely true that people in tech are often optimistic and/or delusional about the other expertise at their command. But it’s not like the basic assumption here is completely crazy. Being a surgeon might require thinking about a few interacting systems, but mostly the number and nature of those systems involved stay the same. Talented programmers without even formal t…

But even if we just look at the examples given by the parent, most of them are not about systems or models at all. Epidemiology and politics concern practical matters of life. In such matters, life experience will always trump abstract knowledge.

Epidemiology and politics do involve systems, I’m afraid. We can call it “practical” or “human” or “subjective” all we like, but human behaviors exhibit the same patterns when understood from a statistical instead of an individual standpoint.
Post reply on HN