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)

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

  • gigachad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 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.

  • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

  • fallowseed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        37 minutes 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.

  • Vinny_93@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.