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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#871

Post by cryptonym »

hnaccount_rng wrote: post #766
flashman wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jevons was talking about coal as an input to commercial processes, for which there were other alternatives that competed on price (e.g. manual/animal labour). Whatever the process, it generated a return, it had utility, and it had scale. 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 t…

I recently had a discussion with a higher ranked executive and his take on AI changed my outlook a bit. For him the value of ChatGPT:tm: wasn't so much the speed up in any particular task (like presentation generation or so). It's a replacement for consultants. Yes, the value of those only exists mostly if your internal team is too stubborn to change its opinion. But that seems to be the norm. And the value (those) c…

"Throw ideas and see what sticks" sounds very entry-level. Maybe it saves time it would take for one of your team to read first two chapters of a book on the topic.

That exec was hiring consultant and no longer is, in meaningful proportion, thanks to LLM?

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#872

Post by verytrivial »

Jasp3r wrote: post #857
verytrivial wrote: post #846

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?

The hypothesis I have is that China has way more compute resources than they are willing to share. Compute resources they officially should not access to given export bans, where mentioning them might lead to their export ban bypass getting rolled up.

Maybe. They're under no obligation to tell the truth about this.

Hypothetical: Take a large short position on NVDA, announce the market that you trained a massive model without using 10s of millions of rare-as-hen's-teeth NVDA-sentsitive resources. Settle postition then quietly settle giant compute bill. Difficult to know either way, but the market seems have taken the team at face value. I guess we'll know if and only if this reduced training cost methodology is replicated.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#873

Post by nailer »

daveguy wrote: post #600
nailer wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money isn’t fringe, and the target for crypto is all transactions, rather than the existing model where you pay between two and 3.5% to a card company or other middleman.

Credit card companies averaged over 22,000 transactions per second in 2023 without ever having to raise the fee. How many is crypto even capable of processing? Processing without the fee going up? What fraud protection guarantees are offered to the parties of crypto transactions?

> Credit card companies averaged over 22,000 transactions per second in 2023 without ever having to raise the fee.

Oh good because the fee is insanely high.

> How many is crypto even capable of processing?

1M a second including voting transactions, divide by 4 for non-voting TPS.

https://youtu.be/8sl3RcN2Rdk?si=saRTd-fQqG1-L_kb

Transaction fee for a simple transfer is a fraction of a penny.

I’m not sure if your last question is regarding consumer fraud or cryptographic fraud proofs so I won’t answer it until you clarify.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#874

Post by miohtama »

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…

AMD is failing to recreate CUDA.

Intel is dying.

Who will step in as credible competition, and when?

A trillion dollar question.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#875

Post by pjc50 »

miohtama wrote: post #874
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

AMD is failing to recreate CUDA. Intel is dying. Who will step in as credible competition, and when? A trillion dollar question.

While we can bet on "AMD are too sclerotic to fix their drivers even if it's an existential threat to the company", I don't think we can bet on "if we deny technology to China they won't try to copy it anyway".

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#876

Post by unsupp0rted »

roenxi wrote: post #704
haliskerbas wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But every successful SV founder and or VC is not only a tech genius but also a geopolitical and socioeconomic expert! That’s why they make war companies, cozy up to politicians, and talk about how woke is ruining the world. /s

In fairness, 'geopolitical experts' may not really exist. There are a range of people who make up interesting stories to a greater or lesser extent but all seem to be serially misinformed. Some things are too complicated to have expertise in. Indeed, while the existence of socioeconomic experts seems more likely we don't have any way of reliably identifying them. The people who actually end up making social or econom…

I thought Peter Zeihan was a geopolitical expert until he started talking about things I lived through, with complete ignorance of the basics. It's not that his take was wrong, it's that his basic underlying assumptions were all wildly different from reality on the ground.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#877

Post by mandmandam »

vishnugupta wrote: post #750
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.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon among IT & tech VC crowd. They will launch pod cast, offer expert opinion and what not on just about every topic under the Sun, from cold fusion to COVID vaccine to Ukraine war. You wouldn’t see this in other folks, for example, a successful medical surgeon won’t offer much assertion about NVIDIA. And the general tendency among audience is to assume that expertise can be carried across do…

> You wouldn’t see this in other folks, for example, a successful medical surgeon won’t offer much assertion about NVIDIA.

Doctors are actually known for this phenomenon. Flight schools particularly watch out for them because their overconfidence gets them in trouble.

And, though humans everywhere do this, Americans are particularly known for it. There are many compilation videos where Americans are asked their opinion on whether Elbonia needs to be bombed or not, followed by enthusiastic agreement. That's highly abnormal in most other countries, where "I don't know" is seen as an acceptable response.

> Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. ― Isaac Asimov

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#878

Post by matwood »

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…

Related to your #2. I mentioned this elsewhere yesterday, but NVDA's margins (55% last quarter!) are a gift and a curse. They look great for the stock in the short term, but they also encourage its customers to aggressively go after them. Second, their best customers are huge tech companies who have the capital and expertise (or can buy it) to go after NVDA. DeepSeek just laid out a path to put NVDAs margins under pressure, hence the pullback.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#879

Post by unsupp0rted »

wbsun wrote: post #625
eigenvalue wrote: post #567

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 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.

Tech people are allowed to quickly learn a domain enough to build the software that powers it, bringing in insights from other domains they've been across.

Just don't allow them to then comment on that domain with any degree of insight.

Re: Nvidia’s $589B DeepSeek rout

#880

Post by farseer »

fcanesin wrote: post #866

Nvidia doesn't have a monopoly on GEMM and GEMV. There will be dozens of hardware vendors. It is TSMC that should be the most valuable company in the world.

By that logic TSMC is not the only one capable of 5nm. ASML should be the most valuable company in the world?
Post reply on HN