ROFL 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 eat shit, Huang
i made some good money on that inevitable rebound. 30% gains in a day! thanks Huang
This has nothing to do with DeepSeek. The world has run out of flashy leather jackets for Jensen to wear, so nvidia is toast.
Good. Nvidia has grown greedy and fat.
Time to harvest its succulent body meat from within its carapace
Good. Let’s keep this ball rolling.
Okay, cool…
So, how much longer before Nvidia stops slapping a “$500-600 RTX XX70” label on a $300 RTX XX60 product with each new generation?
The thinly-veiled 75-100% price increases aren’t fun for those of us not constantly-touching-themselves over AI.
After this they will stop and start slapping a $1000 label
Try asking DeepSeek something about Xi Jinping. "Sorry, it’s beyond my current scope’ :-) Wondering why even it cannot cite his official party biography :-)
Try asking ChatGPT if Israel is committing genocide and watch it do the magical Hasbara dance around the subject.
I did. The answer it gave is clear and concise with no judgement. Instead it talks about the argument on both sides. Not the “magical Hasbara dance” you promised me.
Try asking Deepseek about Taiwan independence and watch how it completely ignores all (/think) and gives a false answer.
The question of whether Israel is currently committing genocide is a subject of intense debate among international organizations, scholars, and political entities.
Accusations of Genocide:
Amnesty International’s Report: On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International released a report concluding that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The report cites actions such as killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.
UN Special Committee Findings: In November 2024, a UN Special Committee found that Israel’s methods of warfare in Gaza are consistent with characteristics of genocide, noting mass civilian casualties and widespread destruction.
Scholarly Perspectives: Israeli historian Amos Goldberg has stated that the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide, pointing to the extensive destruction and high civilian death toll as indicative of genocidal intent.
Counterarguments:
Israeli Government’s Position: The Israeli government asserts that its military actions in Gaza are aimed at dismantling Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, and emphasizes efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
Criticism of Genocide Accusations: Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC) reject the genocide label, arguing that Israel’s actions are self-defense measures against Hamas and do not meet the legal definition of genocide.
Legal Definition of Genocide:
According to the UN’s 1948 Convention on Genocide, genocide includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.
Conclusion:
The determination of whether Israel’s actions constitute genocide involves complex legal and factual analyses. While some international bodies and scholars argue that the criteria for genocide are met, others contend that Israel’s military operations are legitimate acts of self-defense. This remains a deeply contentious issue within the international community.
This is very interesting. You are getting a completely different response than I got. It lied to me that human rights organizations had not accused Israel of committing genocide. In the initial question it did not even mention human rights orgs, I had to ask deeper to receive this:
Looks like the Hasbara dance to me. Anything to not give a clear or concise answer
You’re expecting an opinion. It’s an AI chatbot. Not a moral compass. It lays out facts and you make the determination.
AI chatbots do not lay out facts
Well, that’s the intent at least. Not to form an opinion.
If you’re of the idea that it’s not a genocide you’re wrong. There is no alternate explanation. If it were giving a fact that would be correct. The fact that it’s giving both sides is an opinion rather than a fact.
If their ibtebtion was fact only. The answer would have been yes
I mean that’s the kind of answer DeepSeek gives you if you ask it about Uyghurs. “Some say it’s a genocide but they don’t so guess we’ll never know ¯_(ツ)_/¯”, it acts as if there’s a complete 50/50 split on the issue which is not the case.
So you expect that an AI provides a morally framed view on current events that meet your morally framed point of view?
The answer provides a concise overview on the topic. It contains a legal definition and different positions on that matter. It does at not point imply. It’s not the job of AI (or news) to form an opinion, but to provide facts to allow consumers to form their own opinion. The issues isn’t AI in this case. It’s the inability of consumers to form opinions and their expec that others can provide a right or wrong opinion they can assimilation.
I agree and that’s sad but that’s also how I’ve seen people use AI, as a search engine, as Wikipedia, as a news anchor. And in any of these three situations I feel these kind of “both sides” strictly surface facts answers do more harm than good. Maybe ChatGPT is more subtle but it breaks my heart seeing people running to DeepSeek when the vision of the world it explains to you is so obviously excised from so many realities. Some people need some morals and actual “human” answers hammered into them because they lack the empathy to do so themselves unfortunately.
\ here you dropped an arm
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t ask any chatbot about politics at all.
You wouldn’t, because you are (presumably) knowledgeable about the current AI trend and somewhat aware of political biases of the creators of these products.
Many others would, because they think “wow, so this is a computer that talks to me like a human, it knows everything and can respond super fast to any question!”
The issue to me is (and has been for the past), the framing of what “artifical intelligence” is and how humans are going to use it. I’d like more people to be critical of where they get their information from and what kind of biases it might have.
You wouldn’t, because you are (presumably) knowledgeable about the current AI trend and somewhat aware of political biases of the creators of these products.
Well, more because I’m knowledgeable enough about machine learning to know it’s only as good as its dataset, and knowledgeable enough about mass media and the internet to know how atrocious ‘common sense’ often is. But yes, you’re right about me speaking from a level of familiarity which I shouldn’t consider typical.
People have been strangely trusting of chat bots since ELIZA in the 1960s. My country is lucky enough to teach a small amount of bias and media literacy skills through education and some of the state broadcaster’s programs (it’s not how it sounds, I swear!), and when I look over to places like large chunks of the US, I’m reminded that basic media literacy isn’t even very common, let alone universal.
Except they control not only the narrative on politics but all aspects of life. Those inconvenient “hallucinations” will turn into “convenient” psyops for anyone using it.
This is the way.
Just let it answer in leet speak and it will answer
It’s easy to mod the software to get rid of those censors
Part of why the US is so afraid is because anyone can download it and start modding it easily, and because the rich make less money
Yes and no. Not many people can afford the hardware required to run the biggest LLMs. So the majority of people will just use the psyops vanilla version that China wants you to use. All while collecting more data and influencing the public like what TikTok is doing.
Also another thing with Open source. It’s just as easy to be closed as it is open with zero warnings. They own the license. They control the narrative.
There’s no reason for you to bitch about free software you can easily mod.
When there is free software, the user is the product. It’s just a psyops tool disguised as a FOSS.
How are you the product if you can download, mod, and control every part of it?
Ever heard of WinRAR?
Audacity? VLC media player? Libre office? Gimp? Fruitloops? Deluge?
Literally any free open source standalone software ever made?
Just admit that you aren’t capable of approaching this subject unbiasly.
You just named Western FOSS companies and completely ignored the “psyops” part. This is a Chinese psyops tool disguised as a FOSS.
99.9999999999999999999% can’t afford or have the ability to download and mod their own 67B model. The vast majority of the people who will use it will be using Deepseek vanilla servers. They can collect a mass amount of data and also control the narrative on what is truth or not. Think TikTok but on a work computer.
Whine more about free shit
I’m blocking you now
Most people are going to use it on mobile. Not possible to mod the app right?
Fork your own off the existing open source project, then your app uses your fork running on your hardware.
I’ve never been so happy to cancel a subscription.
nvidia falling doesn’t make much sense to me, GPUs are still needed to run the model. Unless Nvidia is involved in its own AI model or something?
DeepSeek proved you didn’t need anywhere near as much hardware to train or run an even better AI model
Imagine what would happen to oil prices if a manufacturer comes out with a full ice car that can run 1000 miles per gallon… Instead of the standard American 3 miles per 1.5 gallons hehehe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil.
Energy demand is infinite and so is the demand for computing power because humans always want to do MORE.
Yes but that’s not the point… If you can buy a house for $1000 nobody would buy a similar house for $500000
Eventually the field would even out and maybe demand would surpass current levels, but for the time being, Nvidia’s offer seem to be a giant surplus and speculators will speculate
If you need far less computing power to train the models, far less gpus are needed, and that hurts nvidia
does it really need less power? I’m playing around with it now and I’m pretty impressed so far. it can do math, at least.
That’s the claim, it has apparently been trained using a fraction of the compute power of the GPT models and achieves similar results.
fascinating. my boss really bought into the tech bro bullshit, every time we get coffee as a team, he’s always going on and on about how chatGPT will be the savior of humanity, increase productivity so much that we’ll have a 2 day work week, blah blah blah.
I’ve been on his shit list lately because i had to take some medical leave and didn’t deliver my project on time.
Now that this thing is open sourced, I can bring it to him, tell him it out performs even chatgpt O1 or whatever it is, and tell him that we can operate it locally. I’ll be off the shit list and back into his good graces and maybe even get a raise.
Your boss sounds like he buys into bullshit for a living. Maybe that’s what drew him to the job, lol.
I think believing in our corporate AI overlords is even overshadowed by believing those same corporations would pass the productivity gains on to their employees.
But I feel like that will just lead to more training with the same (or more) hardware with a more efficient model. Bitcoin mining didn’t slow down only because it got harder. However I don’t know enough about the training process. I assume more efficient use of the hardware would allow for larger models to be trained on the same hardware and training data?
They’ll probably do that, but that’s assuming we aren’t past the point of diminishing returns.
The current LLM’s are pretty basic in how they work, and it could be that with the current training we’re near what they’ll ever be capable of. They’ll of course invest a billion in training a new generation, but if it’s only marginally better than the current one, they won’t keep investing billions into it if it doesn’t really improve the results.
I should really start looking into shorting stocks. I was looking at the news and Nvidia’s stock and thought “huh, the stock hasn’t reacted to these news at all yet, I should probably short this”.
And then proceeded to do fuck all.
I guess this is why some people are rich and others are like me.
It’s been proven that people who do fuckall after throwing their money into mutual funds generally fare better than people actively monitoring and making stock moves.
You’re probably fine.
I never bought NVIDIA in the first place so this news doesn’t affect me.
If anything now would be a good time to buy NVIDIA. But I probably won’t.
The vast majority of my invested money is in SPY. I had a lot of “money” wiped out yesterday. It’s already trending back up. I’m holding for now.
It’s pretty difficult to open a true short position. Providers like Robinhood create contract for differences which are subject to their TOS.
They probably mean buy puts but they don’t have the knowledge to know the vocabulary.
I’m so happy this happened. This is really a power move from China. The US was really riding the whole AI bubble. By “just” releasing a powerful open-source AI model they’ve fucked the not so open US AI companies. I’m not sure if this was planned from China or whether this is was really just a small company doing this because they wanted to, but either way this really damages the western economy. And its given western consumers a free alternative. A few million dollars invested (if we are to believe the cost figures) for a major disruption.
Socialism/Communism will always outcompete the capitalists. And they know it, which is why the US invades, topples, or sanctions every country that moves towards worker controlled countries.
I disagree. Under the right conditions (read: actual competition instead of unregulated monopolies) I think a capitalist system be able to stay ahead, though I think both systems could compete depending on how they’re organized.
But what I’m more interested in is you view that China is still Socialist/Communist. Isn’t DeepSeek a private company trying to maximize profits for itself by innovating, instead of a public company funded by the people? I don’t really know myself, but my perspective was that this was more of a capitalist vs capitalist situation. With one side (the US) kinda suffering from being so unregulated that innovation dies down.
You don’t even realise how strong capitalism is in China.
It sounds like you don’t know what “capitalism” means. Market participation exists in other economy types, too. It’s how the means of production are controlled and the profits distributed that defines capitalism vs communism.
And you don’t lift 800 million people out of poverty under capitalism. Or they’ve done a ridiculously bad job of concentrating profits into the hands of a very small few.
The issue with your original comment is that it’s simplified on many levels beyond what is acceptable. China has companies working on delivering highest financial output regardless of other citizens and their rights to have fair share in produced goods. They are by no means controlled by workers (why would they accept e. g. 996?) nor creating fair rules to others economically (e.g. Taobao and their alghorims pushing many sellers to sell bellow profitable levels just to maintain visibility on their site). Put it also into wider perspective: China started to move forward in quality of life only after Deng. US system is by no means bad but it doesn’t make Chinese one perfect.
Yeah that’s why the Soviet union outcompeted capitalism in the 1980s lmao
That you had to qualify it with a date after it had been corrupted by the west, implies that you’re well aware of how well communism served for half a century before that.
They went from a nation of dirt poor peasants, to a nuclear superpower driving the space race in just a couple of decades. All thanks to communism. And also why China is leaving us in the dust.
There are many instances of communism failing lmao
There are also many current communist states that have less freedom than many capitalist states
Also, you need to ask the Uyghurs how they’re feeling about their experience under the communist government you’re speaking so highly of at the moment.
you need to ask the Uyghurs how they’re feeling about their experience under the communist government
Everytime people ask regular Uyghurs, they’re usually happy enough with it. I’m guessing you mean ask Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation to tell the Uyghurs what they think.
How many of those instances failed due to external factors, such as illegal sanctions or a western coup or western military aggression?
Which communist states would you say have less freedom than your country? Let’s compare.
The Uyghur genocide was debunked. Even the US state department was forced to admit they didn’t have the evidence to support their claims. In reality, western intelligence agencies were trying to radicalize the Uyghurs to destabilize the region, but China has been rehabilitating them. The intel community doesn’t like their terrorist fronts to be shut down.
Its smells like wumao in here.
LMAO found the pro-Xi propagandist account
Either you’re brainwashed, are only reading one-sided articles, or you’re an adolescent with little world experience given how confidently you speak in absolutes, which doesn’t reflect how nuanced the global stage is.
I’m not saying capitalism is the best, but communism won’t ALWAYS beat out capitalism (as it hasn’t regardless of external factors b/c if those regimes were strong enough they would be able to handle or recover from external pressures) nor does it REQUIRE negatively affecting others as your other comment says. You’re just delulu.
Remember, while there maybe instances where all versions of a certain class of anything are equal, in most cases they are not. So blanketly categorizing as your have done just reflects your lack of historical perspective.
You should really drop the overconfidence, and re-evaluate your biases and perspectives. Regurgitating western propaganda almost verbatim is not a good sign that you’re on the right path.
Yeah just had to genocide a few million Ukrainians to get there!
Any corrupt leaders are capable of committing genocide. The difference is capitalism requires genocide to continue functioning.
How’s that boot taste
LoL. What boot? I’m advocating for worker control, genius.
No it doesn’t. It requires imperialism. The genocides are simply efficient for the imperial machine creating settlements, but it’s not a requirement. They’re evidently avoidable and capitalists just repeatedly decide not to avoid it because they consider it cheaper to commit genocide rather than integrate more passively.
Imperialism requires genocide. Where do you think the people from that land go to?
We need to open source the whole government. Decentralized communism.
Absolutely. More direct democracy. The whole point of representative democracy is issues of time and distance. Now that we can communicate fast and across the globe, average citizens should play a much larger & more active role in directing the government.
How do you solve the problem that half the country can’t even be bothered to participate once every four years?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you 100%, but how would we get people to engage with such a system?
How do you solve the problem that half the country can’t even be bothered to participate once every four years?
I assume you’re talking about the US electoral system?? That’s very different.
but how would we get people to engage with such a system?
By empowering them.
Consider how the current electoral system disempowers people:
-
Some people literally cannot vote or risk jeopardizing their job taking the day off, others face voter suppression tactics
-
The FPTP system (esp. spoiler effect) and the present political circumstances mean that there are really only two viable options for political parties for most people, so many feel that neither option represents them, let alone their individual positions on policy
-
Politics is widely considered to be corrupt and break electoral promises regularly. There is little faith in either party to represent voters
But, in a system where you are able to represent yourself at will, engagement is actually rewarding and meaningful. It won’t magically make everyone care, but direct democracy alongside voter rights reform would likely make more people think it’s worth polling.
I hope you’re right. I would love to see it. I actually support mandatory voting like in Australia. With mostly current laws everyone could get a mail in ballot. If you don’t want to participate just check that box at the top, sign it, and send it in.
Your system sounds much better but would require a lot more legislation.
Well, it would require more than just legislation change. Truth be told, in the US, a working democracy requires some form of revolution since the people holding all the power benefit from the broken system. But on the other hand, organizations and communities (including territories of hundreds of thousands) practicing direct democracy on a smaller scale have seen success with these strategies.
-
I think you’re victim blaming. I can’t blame half the country for not wanting to participate in a symbolic gesture that will have no impact on the end result in this corrupted system.
https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-little-impact-on-public-policy/
Okay seriously this technology still baffles me. Like its cool but why invest so much in an unknown like AIs future ? We could invest in people and education and end up with really smart people. For the cost of an education we could end up with smart people who contribute to the economy and society. Instead we are dumping billions into this shit.
And you could pay people to use an abacus instead of a calculator. But the advanced tech improves productivity for everyone, and helps their output.
If you don’t get the tech, you should play with it more.
I get the tech, and still agree with the preposter. I’d even go so far as that it probably worsens a lot currently, as it’s generating a lot of bullshit that sounds great on the surface, but in reality is just regurgitated stuff that the AI has no clue of. For example I’m tired of reading AI generated text, when a hand written version would be much more precise and has some character at least…
If you are blindly asking it questions without a grounding resources you’re gonning to get nonsense eventually unless it’s really simple questions.
They aren’t infinite knowledge repositories. The training method is lossy when it comes to memory, just like our own memory.
Give it documentation or some other context and ask it questions it can summerize pretty well and even link things across documents or other sources.
The problem is that people are misusing the technology, not that the tech has no use or merit, even if it’s just from an academic perspective.
Try getting a quick powershell script from Microsoft help or spiceworks. And then do the same on GPT
What should I expect? (I don’t do powershell, nor do I have a need for it)
I think the sentiment is the same with any code language.
So unreliable boilerplate generator, you need to debug?
Right I’ve seen that it’s somewhat nice to quickly generate bash scripts etc.
It can certainly generate quick’n dirty scripts as a starter. But code quality is often supbar (and often incorrect), which triggers my perfectionism to make it better, at which point I should’ve written it myself…
But I agree that it can often serve well for exploration, and sometimes you learn new stuff (if you weren’t expert in it at least, and you should always validate whether it’s correct).
But actual programming in e.g. Rust is a catastrophe with LLMs (more common languages like js work better though).
I use C# and PS/CMD for my job. I think you’re right. It can create a decent template for setting things up. But it trips on its own dick with anything more intricate than simple 2 step commands.
It’s one thing to be ignorant. It’s quite another to be confidently so in the face of overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong. Impressive.
confidently so in the face of overwhelming evidence
That I’d really like to see. And I mean more than the marketing bullshit that AI companies are doing…
For the record I was one of the first jumping on the AI hype-train (as programmer, and computer-scientist with machine-learning background), following the development of GPT1-4, being excited about having to do less boilerplaty code etc. getting help about rough ideas etc. GPT4 was almost so far as being a help (similar with o1 etc. or Anthropics models). Though I seldom use AI currently (and I’m observing similar with other colleagues and people I know of) because it actually slows me down with my stuff or gives wrong ideas, having to argue, just to see it yet again saturating at a local-minimum (aka it doesn’t get better, no matter what input I try). Just so that I have to do it myself… (which I should’ve done in the first place…).
Same is true for the image-generative side (i.e. first with GANs now with diffusion-based models).
I can get into more details about transformer/attention-based-models and its current plateau phase (i.e. more hardware doesn’t actually make things significantly better, it gets exponentially more expensive to make things slightly better) if you really want…
I hope that we do a breakthrough of course, that a model actually really learns reasoning, but I fear that that will take time, and it might even mean that we need different type of hardware.
Any other AI company, and most of that would be legitimate criticism of the overhype used to generate more funding. But how does any of that apply to DeepSeek, and the code & paper they released?
DeepSeek
Yeah it’ll be exciting to see where this goes, i.e. if it really develops into a useful tool, for certain. Though I’m slightly cautious non-the less. It’s not doing something significantly different (i.e. it’s still an LLM), it’s just a lot cheaper/efficient to train, and open for everyone (which is great).
What’s this “if” nonsense? I loaded up a light model of it, and already have put it to work.
“Improves productivity for everyone”
Famously only one class benefits from productivity, while one generates the productivity. Can you explain what you mean, if you don’t mean capitalistic productivity?
I’m referring to output for amount of work put in.
I’m a socialist. I care about increased output leading to increased comfort for the general public. That the gains are concentrated among the wealthy is not the fault of technology, but rather those who control it.
Thank god for DeepSeek.
Because rulling class got high on the promise that they could finally eliminate workers as a cost and be independent from us.
They don’t want to get rid of workers because then there would be no consumers. No, they want to increase the downward pressure on wages so they can vacuum up further savings.
Why? If you automatize away (regardless of whether it’s feasible or not) all the workers, what’s stop them for cutting them out of the equation? Why can’t they just trade assets between themselves, maintaining a small slave population that does machine maintenance for food and shelter and screwing the rest? Why do you think they still need us if they own both the means for the production as well as labor to produce? That would be a post-labour scarcity economy, available only for the wealthy and with the rest of us left to rot. If you have assets like land, materials, factories you can participate, if you don’t, you can’t
While I don’t think that this is feasible technologically yet by any means, I think this is what the rich are huffing currently. They want to be independent from us because they are threatened by us.
They want you to owe your soul to the company store, to live hand-to-mouth by their largess.
It’s easier to sell people on the idea of a new technology or system that doesn’t have any historical precedent. All you have to do is list the potential upsides.
Something like a school or a workplace training programme, those are known quantities. There’s a whole bunch of historical and currently-existing projects anyone can look at to gauge the cost. Your pitch has to be somewhat realistic compared to those, or it’s gonna sound really suspect.
Look at it in another way, people think this is the start of an actual AI revolution, as in full blown AGI or close to it or something very capable at least. Personally I don’t think we’re anywhere near something like that with the current technology, I think it’s a dead end, but if there’s even a small possibility of it being true, you want to invest early because the returns will be insane if it pans out. Full blown AGI would revolutionize everything, it would probably be the next industrial revolution after the internet.
Look at it in another way, people think this is the start of an actual AI revolution, as in full blown AGI or close to it or something very capable at least
I think the bigger threat of revolution (and counter-revolution) is that of open source software. For people that don’t know anything about FOSS, they’ve been told for decades now that [XYZ] software is a tool you need and that’s only possible through the innovative and superhuman-like intelligent CEOs helping us with the opportunity to buy it.
If everyone finds out that they’re actually the ones stifling progress and development, while manipulating markets to further enrich themselves and whatever other partners that align with that goal, it might disrupt the golden goose model. Not to mention defrauding the countless investors that thought they were holding rocket ship money that was actually snake oil.
All while another country did that collectively and just said, “here, it’s free. You can even take the code and use it how you personally see fit, because if this thing really is that thing, it should be a tool anyone can access. Oh, and all you other companies, your code is garbage btw. Ours runs on a potato by comparison.”
I’m just saying, the US has already shown they will go to extreme lengths to keep its citizens from thinking too hard about how its economic model might actually be fucking them while the rich guys just move on to the next thing they’ll sell us.
ETA: a smaller scale example: the development of Wine, and subsequently Proton finally gave PC gamers a choice to move away from Windows if they wanted to.
How would the investors profit from paying for someone’s education? By giving them a loan? Don’t we have enough problems with the student loan system without involving these assholes more?
Tech/Wall St constantly needs something to hype in order to bring in “investor” money. The “new technology-> product development -> product -> IPO” pipeline is now “straight to pump-and-dump” (for example, see Crypto currency).
The excitement of the previous hype train (self-driving cars) is no longer bringing in starry-eyed “investors” willing to quickly part ways with OPM. “AI” made a big splash and Tech/Wall St is going to milk it for all they can lest they fall into the same bad economy as that one company that didn’t jam the letters “AI” into their investor summary.
Tech has laid off a lot of employees, which means they are aware there is nothing else exciting in the near horizon. They also know they have to flog “AI” like crazy before people figure out there’s no “there” there.
That “investors” scattered like frightened birds at the mere mention of a cheaper version means that they also know this is a bubble. Everyone wants the quick money. More importantly they don’t want to be the suckers left holding the bag.
It’s like how revolutionary battery technology is always just months away.
I follow EV battery tech a little. You’re not wrong that there is a lot of “oh its just around the bend” in battery development and tech development in general. I blame marketing for 80% of that.
But battery technology is changing drastically. The giant cell phone market is pushing battery tech relentlessly. Add in EV and grid storage demand growth and the potential for some companies to land on top of a money printing machine is definitely there.
We’re in a golden age of battery research. Exciting for our future, but it will be a while before we consumers will have clear best options.
For the cost of an education we could end up with smart people who contribute to the economy and society. Instead we are dumping billions into this shit.
Those are different "we"s.
Because the silicon valley bros had convinced the national security wonks in the Beltway that it was paramount for national security, technological leadership and economic prosperity.
I think this will go down as the biggest grift in history.
Kevin Walmsley reported on Deepseek 10 days ago. Last week, the smart money exited big tech. This week the panic starts.
I’m getting big dot-com 2.0 vibes from all of this.
Education doesn’t make a tech CEO ridiculously wealthy, so there’s no draw for said CEOs to promote the shit out of education.
Plus educated people tend to ask for more salary. Can’t do that and become a billionaire!
Was watching bbc news interview some American guy about this and wow they were really pushing that it’s no big deal and deepseek is way behind and a bit of a joke. Made claims they weren’t under cyber attack they just couldn’t handle having traffic etc.
Kinda making me root for China honestly.
He’s likely not wrong. Too soon to know how well it lives up to the hype. As well It could be like we had a 6 million $$ budget. Just don’t pay any attention to the free data center use that pre-computed the data. As well startups make reckless optimistic promises that can be delivered on all the time.
What the fuck are markets when you can automate making money on them???
Ive been WTF about the stock market for a long time but now it’s obviously a scam.
The stock market is nothing more than a barometer for the relative peace of mind of rich people.
Great, a stock sale.
I think this prompted investors to ask “where’s the ROI?”.
Current AI investment hype isn’t based on anything tangible. At least the amount of investment isn’t, it is absurd to think that trillion dollars that was put in the space already, even before that Softbanks deal is going to be returned. The models still hallucinate as it is inherent to the architecture, we are nowhere near replacing the workers but we got chatbots that “when they work sometimes, then they are kind of good?” and mediocre off-putting pictures. Is there any value? Sure, it’s not NFTs. But the correction might be brutal.
Interestingly enough, DeepSeek’s model is released just before Q4 earning’s call season, so we will see if it has a compounding effect with another statement from big players that they burned massive amount of compute and USD only to get milquetoast improvements and get owned by a small Chinese startup that allegedly can do all that for 5 mil.
You fogot NSFW content, many people are making money using it. There is also AI advertising using fake models, very lucrative business.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t have any uses but the costs outpace the investments done by a mile. Current LLM and vLLMs help with efficiency to a degree but this is not sustainable and the correction is overdue.
I was making a joke, I agree with you it is over hyped. It basically just takes the training data mixes it up and gives you a result. It is not the so called life changing thing that they are advertising. It is good for writing email though.
I have a dirty suspicion that the “where’s the ROI?” talking point is actually a calculated and collaborated strategy by big wall street banks to panic retail investors to sell so they can gobble up shares at a discount - trump is going to be pumping (at minimum) hundreds of BILLIONS into these companies in the near future.
Call me a conspiracy guy, but I’ve seen this playbook many many times
I mean, I’m working on that tech and the evaluation boggles my mind. This is nowhere near worth what is put into it. It rides on empty promises that may or may not materialize (I can’t say with 100% certainty that a breakthrough happen), but current models are massively overvalued. I’ve seen that happen with ConvNets (Hinton saying we won’t need radiologists in five years in…2016, self-driving cars promised every two years, yadda yadda) but nothing to that scale.
hype isn’t based on anything tangible
So just like crypto
I think that the technology itself has been widely adopted and used. There are many examples in medicine, military, entertainment. But OpenAI and other hyperscalers are a bad business that burns through a loooot of cash. Same with Meta AI program. And while this has been a norm with tech darlings that they usually don’t break even for a long time, what’s unprecedented is the rate of loss and further calls for even more money even though there isn’t any clear path from what we have to AGI. All hangs on Altman and other biz-dev vague promises, threats and a “vibe” that they create.
I disagree.
Like it or hate it, crypto is here to stay.
And it’s actually one of the few technologies that, at least with some of the coins, empowers normal people.
It does empower normal people, unfortunately regulations make it harder to use. Try buying Monero, it is very hard to buy.
They have made it harder, but it’s not really hard.
Just buy any regulated crypto and convert. Cake Wallet makes it easy, but there are many other ways.
I myself hold Bitcoin and Monero.
I disagree - before Bitcoin there was no venmo, cashapp, etc. It took weeks to move big money around. I’m not saying shit like NFT’s ever made sense, and meme coins are fucking stupid - unfortunately the crypto world has been taken over by scammers - but don’t shit on the technology
Since before bitcoin we’ve had Faster Payments in UK. I can transfer money directly to anyone else’s bank account and it’s effectively instant. It’s also free. Venmo and cashapp don’t serve a purpose here.
Same in NL most (all?) banks here have an app that lets you transfer money near instantly, create payment requests, execute payments for online orders by scanning a code, etc. It’s great I think.
Forget bitcoin, Monero in my opinion is how crypto was supposed to be. Monero is untracable compared to bitcoin.
Helpfully, because bitcoin gets all the traderbro attention, monero has actually ended up being (relatively) stable because it has more of a purpose.
That is not the only reason it is stable, because all transactions are private, it doesn’t affect the price unlike bitcoin.
It took weeks to move big money around.
Lol this is just either a statement out of ignorance or a complete lie. Wire transfers didn’t take weeks. Checks didn’t take weeks to clear, and most people aren’t moving “big money” via fucking cash app either.
“Big money” isn’t paying half for an Uber unless you’re like 16 years old.
It’s not a statement out of ignorance and it’s not a lie. Most people don’t try to move huge money around so I’ll illustrate what I had to go through - I had a huge sum of money I had in an online investing company. I had a very time critical situation I needed the money for, so I cashed out my investments - the company only cashed out via check sent via registered mail (maybe they did transfers for smaller amounts, but for the sum I had it was check only). It took almost two weeks for me to get that check. When I deposited that check with my bank, the bank had a mandatory 5-7 business day wait to clear (once again, smaller checks they deposit immediately and then do the clearing process - BIG checks they don’t do that, so I had to wait another week). Once cleared, I had to move the money to another bank, and guess what - I couldn’t take that much cash out, daily transfers are capped at like $1500 or whatever they were, so I had to get a check from the bank. The other bank made me wait another 5-7 business day as well, because the check was just too damn big.
4 weeks it took me to move huge money around, and of course I missed the time critical thing I really needed the money for.
I’m just a random person, not a business, no business accounts, etc. The system just isn’t designed for small folk to move big money
In europe i can send any amount (like up to 100k ) in just a few days since 20 years, to anyone with a bank account in europe, from my computer or phone.
Also, since 2025 every bank allows me to send istant money to any other bank account. For free.
So not any amount then. My point stands
Because they have to compete with crypto.
For the istant money from 2025 I Agree, but the bank transfer part is like that since 20 years
It depends on the bank and the amount you are trying to move.There are banks that might take a week or so though very rare and there are banks that might do it instantly. I once used a bank in the US to move money and they sent a physical check and this was domestic not international.
Wire transfers are how you handle actual big money transfers and it doesn’t take weeks.
International transfers do take time, domestic is instant. International transfer typically take 1-5 days.
1-5 days isn’t “weeks”.
Big money is being held because of anti-money laundering, not because of technology.
Money is held so that interest can be earned on the float.
I am not taking about money being held, I talking about regulations and horrible banks not technology. Yes, the current technology allows you instant transfer, but it still depends on the bank. For example some banks allow free international transfers while others require a small fee, some banks you can do the transfer online while others you have to go to the branch in person. You don’t have to go through a bank with crypto, sometimes it is faster and it is definitely more private.
crypto that uses block chain is 100% not private. The whole point of the blockchain is that every single transaction is logged and verifiable for the life of the coin. It’s decentralized so you don’t need to involve a bank, that not the same as private.
Cash transfers are private. That is why there are so many restrictions on cash transactions at banks and borders.
Wtf? Venmo / cashapp are descendent from PayPal which was released ages before any major crypto.
