this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
32 points (97.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36689 readers
1444 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I get the stupid basic excuse about big tech purchasing loads of silicon. That reasoning seems deeply flawed and idiotic to me. If Deepseek R1 democratizes training more for less, then that means customers with mid to small size data centers like universities now have access to train and research models in this space. Nvidia does not have a real competitor, so they get the sale. Their potential customer base just grew exponentially right? OpenAI should be devalued massively by this change, but I don't see why anything impacts Nvidia negatively in this instance. Am I missing something or is the market this level of stupid? (I have no skin in this game)

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago

Because stock traders have no interest in any company or any product. They are all about staying one step ahead of the next trader. As opposed to investors that also have no interest in any company or any product. They are all about the next quarterly report.

This economic system is bullshit.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. I’ve been buying NVDA through this panic.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 24 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

In a gold rush, be the guy selling shovels not looking for gold.

OpenAI: we made a LLM look how good it is.
Investors: wow, here is money for more, how did you do it?
NVIDIA: we sold them the hardware to do it. Our hardware is the best, expensive to buy, and had large markups.
Investors: awww yea, time to make money, buy buy buy.

Chinese AI: we made an AI without NVIDIA hardware*.
NVIDIA/investors: wait what?
Investors: sell sell sell

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 19 points 5 hours ago

They used Nvidia hardware though. Just less of it.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Market manipulation. GPUs are still heavily required perhaps even more now that u can run a decent mode l localy

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Maybe for training but to just use the model locally for a solo user, a GPU isn't needed at all.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago

If u wanna run a decently large model u do. The new nvidia card are especially good cos they have much larger amounts of vram.

[–] gigachad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The stock market is crazy and it doesn't always act rational. Now that I said this, I think the reason is more a question of Chinese vs US technical superiority. In theory, China has no access to the high technology AI chips from NVIDIA, due to sanctions. This must mean that Deepseek was developed with cheaper chips, and NVIDIA chips are not necessary for training LLMs.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

That is what my intuition was looking for but not finding. I wasn't thinking about the ban and implications. This makes much more sense.

[–] EitherEther@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

R1 made waves for two reasons:

  1. It was cheap to train (maybe because they stole/"distilled" openAi's training data).
  2. It is much more efficient to run (it requires much less processing power to run at a decent speed).

I think number 2 is what hit the nVidia stock so hard. Up until the R1 release, the future of AI development would require more GPU and more power. The R1 release showed maybe that isn't the case.

Imagine everyone is out driving around in gas powered cars that get 4MPG. Then a new cheaper gas powered car comes out that gets 60MPG. What happens to the price of gas when the 60MPG car is released? Maybe it fluctuates? Maybe it goes down (less gas is needed due to the more efficient cars)? Maybe it goes up as there are more cars on the road (due to the cheaper entry cost)? What happens if the cheaper more efficient car is electric?

Lots of people see the future of AI as being tied to the hardware and have pumped up nVidia's stock because of that. Anything that goes against that theory will likely let some air out of nVidia's bubble.

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I also think the fact that it's open source kind of takes the mystery out of the ai game and since it's said to be preforming as well as ChatGPT. Takes the wind out of any hardware partners of Openai.

[–] BlackLaZoR@fedia.io 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think the stock drop was about R1 hype. I think it was about parent company circumventing NVIDIA CUDA and building AI software in GPU machine code directly. Licensing GPU drivers for cloud services is a major income source that has been threatened

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I think Deepseek was a factor, but so too were the tariffs announced that week and the reviews coming out about their latest line of consumer GPUs, coupled with the fact that they were just so incredibly overvalued to begin with.

A lot of algorithms likely concluded "It can't go any higher from here" and started selling off.

[–] fallowseed@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

stocks are a confidence game. china showed you can do a lot more with less and i think there was a pretty widely acknowledged awareness that there was already a bubble.. now i'm not a fancy economist but this is what i've gathered

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It’s not a lot more, overall still behind GPT, but it is done with less. So there’s a slight efficiency gain at least, but most of the buzz of R1 is hypeaganda.

[–] simple@lemm.ee 5 points 3 hours ago

This isn't true. R1 trades blows with O1 which is the best model that OpenAI released so far - all the hype on O3 is just vaporware until we have an actual product. Most of the buzz isn't because China made a comparable model with less, it's because they released the weights for free.

Why would you pay $200/month to OpenAI when you can use R1 for free? Better yet, companies can now self-host it for better security and way cheaper costs. The hype is warranted.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 6 points 6 hours ago

If you were supplying huge amounts and often specified products on contract, you can make a lot of money. DeepSeek just made a lot of the quantity and specifics much less and much more generalised.

I have a good amount of confidence they will do what they did in the crypto boom and pivot to small deployment as the possibility of local LLM's becomes more popular, people will be buying and making dedicated local machines. Now they also have more competitors in this space as the chip embargo to China has caused them to roll their own and so in regards to AI processing Nividia is no longer the only kid on the block.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 3 points 5 hours ago

This kind of "active" stock trading is essentially an attempt to predict the future. If you own Nvidia stock and hear about a new disruptive technology entering the market, you might predict that its stock value will drop. So, you sell now before the price falls too much, intending to buy back at a discount once you think it has stabilized.

When enough people do this, it triggers a chain reaction - investors see their holdings losing value and rush to sell before it's "too late." But in reality, it’s rarely too late because, more often than not, the price eventually rebounds. The only reason people lose money is that they panic and sell at a loss. There hasn’t been a single stock market crash in history that we haven’t recovered from.

That’s why writing news articles about short-term stock fluctuations is mostly pointless - these movements barely even register on the graph when viewed over the long term.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 2 points 5 hours ago

The market is not rational. It’s mostly based on vibes and feelings. React first, think later.

[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Pretty much like the other comment. It was thought that we still needed a lot of AI processing power to advance AI before it became more efficient. Now it turns out R1 does what o1 does but with way less. We'll still need nvidia so I think the stock will rise again. Besides, these are just large language models and are still a ways away from actual AI. I think there will be a second bubble at some point.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I think it's not really rooted in facts. AI is an unsubstantiated hype and the stock market is a bubble. People seemed to have been under the impression, that OpenAI was going to invest several trillions(!) of dollars into Nvidia chips. To me, that always seemed a bit unrealistic. But that's what inflated the Nvidia stock. And now it turns out, to everyones' surprise, that OpenAI isn't the only company who can do AI. And that AI is making advancements and is getting better and more efficient all the time... So that trillion dollar bubble collapses.

To me, that's just silly. AI making progress was the very reason for those people to invest in it. Plus it's not like there is another company manufacturing the chips... Deepseek used Nvidia chips. So IMO they proved they're even better than people previously thought and there is room for improvement... But seems to me the stock market is set on doing it one specific and ineffective way, so it theoretically would need more hardware to do AI.

I think it'll turn out the opposite. The better AI gets, the more it'll get adopted. And that'll lead to more sales, not less. And if Nvidia hardware turned out to be better than we thought, it just proves they're ahead of their competition. So even more reason to invest in them. But the stock market sometimes just does silly things and isn't focused on long term goals.