But also, you were talking about Nvidia in your comment I responded to, not Deepseek, so your rebuttal is non sequitur…

communist developed, energy efficient AI.

lol

Actually no. As someone who prefers academic work, I very heavily prefer Deepseek to OpenAI. But neither are open. They have open weights and open source interpreters, but datasets need to be documented. If it’s not reproducible, it’s not open source. At least in my eyes. And without training data, or details on how to collect it, it isn’t reproducible.

You’re right. I don’t like big tech. I want to do research without being accused of trying to destroy the world again.

And how is Deepseek over-hyped? It’s an LLM. LLM’s cannot reason, but they’re very good at producing statistically likely language generation which can sound like its training data enough to gaslight, but not actually develop. They’re great tools, but the application is wrong. Multi domain systems that use expert systems with LLM front ends to provide easy to interpret results is a much better way to do things, and Deepseek may help people creating expert systems (whether AI or not) make better front ends. This is in fact huge. But it’s not the silver bullet tech bros and popsci mags think it is.

Exactly

Hedge |und managers aren’t in the business of knowing things about technology. And I’m not claiming that I know more than “every” technical expert.

The thing is: not “every” expert agrees with the claims of Sam Altman and company. You’ll find that most who agree with him have a material incentive to do so (or are deranged lunatics babbling about Rocco’s Basilisk)

I’m literally informed by experts on the field. And quits a bunch agree that the claims of OpenAI are bogus marketing hype and that we’re currently at the cusp of a bursting AI bubble.