DeepSeek just proved Lina Khan right

[awistfulnihilist@lemmy.world]

Dropsite is great and Ryan Grim is a treasure.

[donkter@lemmy.world]

Keeping your money out of the AI grift was a good idea but doesn't deep seek imply that powerful AI is coming even faster and cheaper than what was already being promised?

[hegar@fedia.io]

Capitalism can't innovate.

[noneofurbusiness@fedia.io]

And if China increasingly becomes the place to go work if you’re an ambitious researcher or developer, it’s not hard to see where that leads.

Is that a thing? I know China's research sector is large and growing, but I never heard of it attracting foreigners.

“The accusations/obsessions over DeepSeek using H100 sound like a rich kids team got outplayed by a poor kids team, who weren't even allowed shoes,” tweeted Jen Zhu, an AI investor, “and now the rich kids are demanding an investigation into whether shoes were used instead of training harder to improve themselves.”

This is amazing.

[drusas@fedia.io]

It is very much not a thing. At least not for American tech workers.

[noneofurbusiness@fedia.io]

*Late stage capitalism can't innovate. The industrial revolution and internet revolution, among others, were fueled by Western capitalists. Adopting capitalism early on is about 75% of the reason the West is at the top of the modern world order.

[independantiste@sh.itjust.works]

New soyjack unlocked?

[allero@lemmy.today]

Is that a thing?

Yes. It's not common for Americans to come to China, but many in other parts of the world do. Currently living in Russia, I personally know a few folks, primarily from IT sector, moving there for new opportunities.

[panarab@lemm.ee]

Protectionism [and Galapagosization] killed the Japanese smartphone industry.

[panarab@lemm.ee]

Is that a thing? I know China’s research sector is large and growing, but I never heard of it attracting foreigners.

They offer very competitive salaries, if I knew Chinese and was 10-15 years younger I would have considered it.

[alexwiwa@lemmy.ml]

I am feeling dangerously smug

[panarab@lemm.ee]

Even if the goal was to destabilize US companies

Good ol' yellow perilism

[neonachtwaechter@lemmy.world]

they will build a tech industry that keeps America globally dominant.

I don't buy it.

At least this Altmann guy has already made it clear that he personally wants to be the ruler of the world.

[mudman@fedia.io]

Man, the hysterical, unhinged US market just has no chill.

Someone came up with a better chatbot-- "OMG, superintelligence is here and is inevitable, all hail our robot overlords and their oligarch creators!"

Somebody outside the US had an idea to train a chatbot for cheaper-- "OMG, US tech is doomed, they have no recourse against this and all the hardware is now worthless!"

Maybe if the markets weren't constantly freaking the hell out about any semblance of technological innovation in search for the next Google or Apple they woldn't have to deflate like a balloon each time reality sets in.

[drmoose@lemmy.world]

Exactly, the AI scene is more competitive than any other tech section ever has been in the entire history of tech.

The "article" is kinda low-effort bait and shouldn't even be here.

[gradually_adjusting@lemmy.world]

The market's chronic convulsive disorder is, imo, an inefficient pricing problem. Price discovery doesn't really exist, most of the trading volume is "off-exchange" and market makers have severe unchecked moral hazards in how they do business.

The underlying value of publicly traded companies simply does not change as fast as this. Regardless of what you might say about the speed at which the market reacts to new information. In a world where the media openly and solely serves the interests of billionaires and a small outfit like Wall Street On Parade is routinely censored on socials, there's no reason to believe anything you're ever told by the news about any moves in the market.

[jonathan@lemmy.zip]

The US is 4% of the world's population.

[yondoza@sh.itjust.works]

If their claims are true, yeah. That's how I read the implications.

[surewhynotlem@lemmy.world]

Stock investing isn't about underlying value. The company itself is almost irrelevant. Stock investing is about predicting stock investor sentiment.

[gradually_adjusting@lemmy.world]

That's not a traditional view of investing or the manner in which securities are built to be valued, but it is admittedly the modal paradigm to which we are subject.