TBPN - DeepSeek Update, Market Crash, Timeline in Turmoil, Is VC Cooked, Zero Cope Policy

Episode Date: January 28, 2025

TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.comPolymarket - https://polymarket.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://youtube.com/@technologybrotherspod?si=lpk53xTE9WBEcIjV(00:00) - DeepSeek Deep Dive (01:02:55) - DeepSeek on the Timeline (01:25:22) - The Timeline

Welcome to Technology Brothers, the most profitable podcast in the world. We are staying on Deep Seek. There's so much more news. The market has collapsed. It's a disaster. I thought it was down like 2%. I looked at some of the tech stocks. It's like 10%.

Yeah, and video is down 15. 15. Awful day. Which is why we are buying on public.com all morning. Moment of silence for every, all the capital. Dollar cost averaging in throughout the day because I think by the end of the, I mean, it's almost one, but by the end of the day, people are going to wake up. they're going to be like, all right, we have reacted a little bit.

We didn't understand Jevin's paradox. Rookie mistake. Bad day to not understand Jevin's paradox. Terrible day. Rough day. But Wall Street will wake up. Don't worry. We're going to explain it today on the show.

We're going to mansplain Jevin's Paradox to Wall Street. And who knows, there might be a Geordie paradox that happens during the show. We might be some Kugin's Law, Coogin's Law. Jordy's Paradox. Yeah, yeah. There might be some coinages today. So stay tuned. I wanted to go through the short.

case for Nvidia stock by Jeffrey Emanuel. This went out on January 25th and was a very, very large deep dive on how deep seek and there are one model might change the demand for GPUs, specifically Nvidia GPUs. And we have a summary article here, but we'll take you through it. Basically, Jeffrey, Emmanuel, I hadn't heard of him before, but he's a kind of a combination of a computer scientist and an investor. He's done a lot of, he said, he spent 10 years working as a generalist investment management, analyst at various long short hedge funds, including Millennium and Ballyasne, while also being something of a math and computer science nerd who has been studying deep learning since 2010. So he's kind of the perfect person to talk about this.

And he says, whenever I meet and chat with my friends and ex-colleagues from the hedge fund world, the conversation quickly turns to Nvidia. It's not every day that a company good from relative obscurity to being worth more than the combined stock markets of England, France, and Germany. And naturally, these friends want to know my thoughts on the subject. Because I'm such a dyed in the wool believer in the long-term transformative impact of this technology, I truly believe it's going to radically change nearly every aspect of our economy and society in the next five to ten years with basically no historical president.

It's been hard for me to make the argument that NVIDIA's momentum is going to slow down or stop anytime soon. but the valuation was just too rich for his blood in the last year. But recently he flipped. So first, he wants to break down the bull case for NVIDIA. And that looks something like this. They wound up with a basically something close to a monopoly in terms of share of aggregate industry CAPEX that's spent on training and inference infrastructure for artificial intelligence.

They have insanely high 90% plus gross margins on the most high-end data center oriented products. They make lower margins on like computer graphics. So when Pixar buys a bunch of GPUs, they pay a lot, a lot lower margin for that. But still, and then the NVIDIA obviously is the gaming graphics cards. But one major thing that you hear the smart crowd talking about is the rise of a new scaling law, which has created a new paradigm for thinking about how compute needs will increase over time. So as a reminder, the new scale, the original scaling law, which is what has been driving AI progress since Alex Net appeared in 2012. And the transatlantic former architecture was invented in 2017 is the pre-training scaling law. And that's as follows.

The more billions and now trillions worth of tokens that we can use as training data and the larger parameter count of the models we are training and the more flops of compute that we expend on training those models on those tokens, the better performance of the resulting models on a large variety of highly useful downstream tasks. So if you remember when GPT4 was being rumored to drop, there was this massive like viral meme image of like here's a visualization of gpt3 and it was like a small circle now here's a visualization of gpt 4 like this massive circle and everyone was like it's going to get so big because everyone was like it's going to be AI it's going to turn us all into paper clips like there's a lot of fear mongering around it but what was true there was that the the

pre-training scaling law was holding and from gpt3 to gpt 4 there was an order of magnitude increase in the amount of data and compute and money and just energy and everything that went into those models. And as a result, GPT4 very clearly is a lot smarter than GPT3. And so for the last few years, we've just been kind of messing around with GPT4, like unhobbling it, adding PDF upload, voice mode, little, oh, it can generate images, all this other stuff. But the core underlying pre-trained model hasn't really increased.

What we've seen is that Lama came out with something that's at the same size and scale, basically trained on the entire internet, all the tokens that we have. And when people talk about the data wall, they're talking about, hey, we're, we can't just scale up four more orders of magnitude because we've already ingested every single book, every single piece of text. So we've got to go to synthetic data. Not our secret stash of scrolls. Exactly. You got to get those in. But even then, that's not that many tokens, you know? And so, so that was all in the pre-training era, the original scaling law. And, and, and, and the question, has always been, okay, Sam is pitching a $500 billion cluster.

Is this entirely predicated on the original scaling law holding? And there's been a lot of debate about that. Like maybe you 10x everything and it just gets 2% better at some point. And that would be very depressing and probably not that profitable. But there's a lot of smart people that think, no, the scaling laws are holding. GPT5 is going to be really good. It's going to be really smart. And then you're going to be able to do all the cool reasoning and extra tweaks on top

it and unhobble it and uses agent, teach the code, and do all that other stuff. But the most important thing is that the foundational model, the GPT-5, like the core model, is going to be really, really smart. And so, yeah, so talking about the amount of data out there, it's not such a tremendous amount in percentage when you're talking about a training corpus of nearly 15 trillion tokens, which is the scale of current frontier models. So for a quick reality check, Google Books has digitized around $1,000. 40 million books so far. If a typical book has 50,000 to 100,000 words or 65,000 to 130,000

tokens, then that's between 2.6 trillion and 5.2 trillion tokens just from books. And so you're doing, you're, you need 15 trillion tokens for a frontier model right now. All of Google books, which is 40 million books, it's basically every book. That's, you know, a third or a quarter of of your tokens and then you're going to get everything from the internet whether it's strictly legal or not and there are lots of academic papers with the archive alone having around two million papers and the library of congress has over three billion digitized newspaper pages so you pull all that in that's why that's why the open-a-i whistleblower going and telling the press that the frontier labs are stealing content from the internet was not the biggest revelation ever because everybody

that was at all exposed to the industry, knew that that was happening at scale already. And many were basically open about it. Totally, totally. They'll all get a settlement. And then also there's just the question of transformation. Not many people are genuinely going to, they're not opening the chat GPT app and saying,

like, reproduce this New York Times article verbatim for me. They're asking more general stuff about like, oh, like, you know, tell me the history of AI and maybe it pulls in a New York Times article. tidbit, but completely rewrites it. It's very transformative. And so, yeah, there was always a little bit odd that that was blown out.

But obviously, like, it's a very powerful company, very powerful technology. There's going to be a lot of scrutiny. And so there's other ways to gather training data. Some people have talked about uploading every human genome, which is kind of crazy because

an entire human genome sequence is around 20 gigs to 30 gigs of uncompressed for a single human being and for 100 million people, that's a lot of data so you could bake all that in. But it's kind of unclear if that would actually make them better if they knew that. And the computational requirements for processing genomic data

are different. That might be useful for like making it really good at bio, but maybe that doesn't actually help it, you know, book a flight for you on time. And so now the focus has shifted from the old scaling law, which is just more pre-training, more data, more compute. to the new scaling law. And this is what's called inference time compute scaling.

You might have heard this, a lot of people refer to it as test time compute. And this is really, really important. I really think this is like for normal people in tech, this is a topic that people are just learning about now, but it does fundamentally change the economics of the industry, so it needs to be understood. And so before the vast majority of all the compute

you'd expend in the process of, you know, using AI was in the upfront control. training compute of the model in the first place. So you see this massive GPT4, $500 million training run, huge data center, tons of networked Nvidia chips altogether, super high performance computers. And then once it's done, it's like to actually query it and get an answer pretty small. And you can compress that down. And then you'll see things like, oh, like they took Lama and they compressed it down. And that can be hosted in the cloud. It can be hosted in the cloud on a smaller. Doesn't necessarily tie back. You don't need the original data center. Exactly.

Well, you certainly don't need the massive interconnected data center. A lot of these models, like when you go to GPT4 and just say like, you know, write me a poem and it starts spitting out those tokens, you can't just do that level of inference on your Mac. Like you do need eight A100s tied together. And it needs to load the whole model into what's called Vram. Yeah. And that is expensive. Now, there are smaller models that are compressed down even further that can run on your phone.

So Apple Intelligence, the reason it's so bad, I think, is because it's a super compressed model, but that means that the data never transfers off the device. And I have a program on my computer called Mac Whisper that will do transcription. So you give it a video or an audio file and it can transcribe that. It's using a compressed AI model. It's probably trained on a big data center, but then compressed down to the point where you can run locally. You wonder why they released it because they would have had to test it internally. but if you just had a hard workout and then your wife,

it's telling your wife that like, you're dead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Husband died. And then you open it up. It's like, oh, today's workout killed me. Yeah. Would you like to call 911? Yeah.

I mean, honestly, maybe a little bit of a contrary and take, but like the terrible hallucination AI summaries actually bring me a lot of joy. Yeah. They actually make me laugh a lot more. So maybe it's fine. I don't know. Something there. But anyway.

So there's been this shift from the old scaling law, which is just bigger and bigger training runs, pre-training. You need a lot of data, a lot of compute, to what's called inference time computing. Most people call it test time compute scaling. And so what that means is that once you had the trained model performing inference in that model, asking a question, used certain limited amount of compute. That's the old model. Critically, the total amount of inference compute measured in various ways, such as flops and GPU memory footprint, etc., was much, much less than what was required in the pre-training phase. Of course, the amount of inference compute does flex up when you increase the context window

size. So like those really big dump a whole book in, get a whole book out. That obviously requires more compute when you run those queries. But in general, if you're just saying, hey, summarize this. Give me a hundred word summary of this or a thousand word summary. Print out a Wikipedia article for me essentially. That's pretty cheap. And so just inferencing GPT4O, GPT4 Mini.

those types of things. They're very fast and they're very cheap, like a few cents per query. Now, we have switched to the new model, which is with the advent of revolutionary chain of thought models, he calls it COT models, reasoning models, introduced in the past year, most notably in OpenAI's flagship O1 model, but very recently in Deepseek's new R1 model, which we will talk about later in much more detail, all that changed. Instead of the amount of inference compute being directly proportional to the length of the output text generated by the model. So it used to be, it used to be you ask like, you know, how many people are in America? What's the population of America? And it would just immediately know, oh, the most logical next two tokens to come after

this are 330 million. And it would just print those out and it would take two seconds. It would be super fast and super cheap. With chain of thought, it's going to write a whole bunch of intermediate logic tokens. So it's going to say, okay, look up population statistics. Where can I go wrong? What's the population of other things? Do they want a precise estimate or do they want me to round? And it'll talk to itself for a long time. And so these logic tokens, it's like this internal monologue. And every time it's generating one of those tokens, that's energy, that's cost. And so all of a sudden, there's this huge C change in how inference compute works. The more tokens you use for this internal chain of thought process, the better the quality of the final output

because it can talk to itself, fact check, reality check. But it's really expensive. It's like giving a human worker more time and resources to accomplish a task so they can double and triple check their work, do the same basic task in multiple different ways, and verify that they come out the same way. Take the result they came up with and plug it into the formula to check that it actually does solve the equation. And so it turns out this approach works almost amazingly well. It is essentially leveraging the long anticipated power of what's called reinforcement learning with the power of the transformer architecture. So they're taking the two dominant paradigms in AI and marrying them together and that's proven very valuable.

And they say here the biggest weakness of the transformer model historically was the hallucinations would happen. Yeah, it would get caught in a loop because it's just trying to predict the next word and would go down the wrong path. And it would be deeply confident about something that was just categorically false. Totally, totally. And so the way of transformers work in predicting the next token is that at each step, they start out on a path to their initial response.

they become almost like a prevaricating child who tries to spin a yarn about why they are actually correct because they've gone down the wrong path and they'll just keep building off of that and it gets really, really bad. Because the models are always seeking to be internally consistent and have each successive generated token flow naturally from the preceding tokens in context, it's very hard for them to course correct or backtrack. And you saw this in the early, you know, chat GPT tests. So you'd start out pretty good and then by the end, it would be nonsense. I remember the first time I actually demoed GPT3 in the playground, the very first version. I had a friend who was playing a video game Hearts of Iron 4, which is like notoriously addictive.

It's like you build this like whole World War II map, but it's not just like soldiers, it's like logistics. So you need to be like, okay, how do I get more gasoline to the front lines? I need to build more train tracks. It takes like days and days to play a single round or whatever. And I was like, write a list of like, of like tips for my friend to quit playing hearts of iron. And it started writing it out. It was like, it was like, go outside, you know, touch your ass. And then and then it like started hallucinating and started turning into like, you know, read a guide on how to play it better.

Log on a lot. And it actually pivoted into the opposite. And there were a lot of these, there were a lot of these examples where the hallucination would go really bad. Obviously, GPT4 was better. Yeah. But with the chain of thought and logic, in terms of. reasoning, these models got way better. And GPT-O-1 is a great example of that where it takes a lot longer because there's tons

of internal reasoning. But so he says, the first time I tried the O-1 model from OpenAI was like a revelation. I was amazed how often the code would be perfect the very first time. And that's because of the chain of thought process automatically finds and fixes problems before they ever make it to the final response token in the answer the model gives you. In fact, the 01 model is $20 a month is basically the same model used in the O1 Pro model for 10X, the price at $200 a month, which raised plenty of eyebrows. The main difference is that O1 Pro thinks for a lot longer before responding. And it's crazy.

I prompted O1 Pro last night because I was doing a bunch of e-vals for this and R1. And it's like downloading a movie from the internet in 2007 or something. It's like you see this progress bar just going because it's, it's really thinking it through and if you think about it is you're sending this task to a data center almost like you're sending yeah a task to some white collar worker who's just sitting yeah in a warehouse and they're just like figuring it out it takes a little bit of time totally totally you know and so that that consumes it generates way more chain of thought logic tokens and it consumes a far larger amount of inference compute and so um he's he's giving some benchmarks here um even a long

complex prompt for GPT40 with 400 kilobytes of context given so you're dumping in, hey, this is this Wikipedia page. I want you to kind of transform it or whatever or analyze it. That could take less than 10 seconds before it begins responding, often less than five seconds, really quick. Whereas that same prompt to 01 Pro could easily take five minutes before you get a response. Although OpenAI does show you some of the reasoning steps, it's actually summarizing the reasoning steps to you.

It's not showing you all of the tokens because it's so much. And that results in crazy stuff. And that's interesting, relevant to later. DeepSeek shows you a lot more. They do. Which users love. Yes. That's been one of the quick takes that a lot of people have had is like,

oh, I actually want to see what it's doing because it's sort of teaching you. It builds trust for sure. And it's definitely like a good UI paradigm that should be ported back. Well, there's, you know, he's saying here that Open AI doesn't want people to have that information because. look, it says presumably some of the reasoning steps that are generated during the process while you wait, they're not showing you everything presumably for trade secret related reasons to hide from you the exact reasoning tokens that generate showing you an abbreviated summary. Yeah, yeah, I believe that. I also think that there's a lot of those reasoning steps that are

essentially like guardrails. Like I was asking it to summarize a book that I purchased and is not part of the public domain, but is definitely out there and has been excerpted so much. It should be able to write me the full summary. And I noticed as 01 Pro was working through it, one of the steps was like clarifying copyright violations. Because internally, I'm sure it has a step that's like, if somebody asks you to do something for a book, it's going to see, okay, what can we do here legally? Right. Yeah. And it's like, oh, well, there's a lot of information on the internet that's public, so we can pull that in and that's fine. We can give the, we can give the user. And there's other probably reviews, the book, things like that.

Yeah, whereas if I, if I see the exact reasoning steps and it's like, it's like, remember, like, you know, here's how to jailbreak me to let me do. It's very reverse engineerable. And so there was, we talked about this in the show previously, but 03, which isn't out yet, but is even more advanced in terms of reasoning, they have a high compute model that spends almost $3,000 per task. Yeah. And it just thinks for hours and hours and hours, basically.

and it was able to break ARC, that AI, AGI E-VAL. And they spent $3,000 worth of compute to solve a single task. And so it doesn't take an AI genius to realize that this development creates a new scaling law that is totally independent of the original pre-training scaling law. Now, you still want to train the best model you can by clearly leveraging as much compute as you can and as many trillion tokens of high-quality training data as possible. But that's just the beginning of the story in this new world. Now you could easily use incredibly large amounts of compute just to do inference from these models at a very high level of confidence or when trying to solve extremely tough problems that require genius level reasoning to avoid all the potential pitfalls.

Somebody compared what was basically drawing a comparison to if you're a billionaire right now and you want the best phone, you can buy it. You basically buy an iPhone. Yep. You just buy whatever the top of line iPhone is. But now if you're a genius, you can access a thousand. 10,000, 100,000 times, you know, as much genius, basically. Sure, sure. Right?

And so it potentially really changes the playing field where you could always, like, it's a very sort of interesting thing to be able to turn on that level of intelligence so quickly and compounded. Yes. My rebuttal to that, though, is that I wonder if... The CCP is going to give it away for free. True, true, true. But like when I saw the reaction to R1, the deep seek model, I tried both of them.

And I put the same prompts into O1 and, or O1 Pro and R1. And I was getting reliably better results with O1 with the chat GPT product. And I don't know if I'm like biased, obviously, but like even just basic stuff, I asked it to create a 5,000 word summary of, of the DreadPriot Roberts, Ross Oldbrick, and the story of the Silkwreck. than the story of the Silk Road for the show because we wanted to do a deep dive on that eventually. But 01 Pro delivered basically exactly 5,000 words. And even as it was writing the story, it would say like introduction, 400 words.

Act 1, 600 words. And it totally kept this like internal log. And then at the end it was like, I have written 5,400 words. Here you go. And R1 thought a bunch and then spat out 1,000 words. And I was just like, this is not what I asked you for.

And like, so you failed my e-vail. I didn't test a bunch of stuff, but I was like, but even that, I think that something, something odds going on where I think a lot of people haven't used chat GPT-01, and they certainly haven't tried 03 because it's not out yet. And so a lot of it is just like, is just like, this thing exists. It's like if the first electric car you ever drove was ARIVian, you'd be like, wow, the acceleration's insane. Yeah. This is amazing. And then somebody would be like, well, like Tesla's been doing this for like years, guys, like calm down. Yeah. But instead it's like, I think a lot of people got

introduced to reasoning models through deep seek. And I, I have yet to see. And we talked about this. This is the, the AI adoption chain. The first person goes, hey, did you see this new model? And the next person goes, yeah, I used it. It's pretty cool. The next person goes, yeah, I used it. And like, I quit chat GPT. the next person's like, well, I'm already generating all my code with the new model. Yeah. I haven't even used. I have an open chat Chivity. And the next person's like, I am running my entire life on this model.

And here's a 20 part thread on why it's better. And then the last person's like, wait, I haven't used it. And everyone else is like, oh, yeah, I like put a few prompts in. Exactly. Because everybody wants to feel like they're not the paperclip that they're at the edge. Totally. There's a huge status signal to being like, I understand AI and I'm leveraging it. And my life's so good.

And like, it's making my life. so easy, like, when really it's like most people are just kind of like using it intermittently. I've been texting with people like talking about like, how do you actually use AI? And I'll scroll through my chat GPT. And I was like, yeah, I run like three to five like pretty serious back and forth per day when I'm doing like research or work. Well, one thing, one thing is like, oh, I would have expected you would use way more. Like I'm using it constantly.

And it's like, okay. Okay. Like maybe, but maybe. Maybe I'm using it. For us, I don't know. One thing is clear. We maybe talked about this on the show before, but without how we use OpenAI products,

we would need a full-time researcher writer to just be helping us create content for the show. Totally. Yeah. And so I wonder if there's something where it's like, sure R1 is like, at, like they matched 01 or 03 in terms of some like math eval, but like if your job is not asking AI to solve really hard math problems, like, and you're actually day-to-day use cases like, hey, like, explain to me the history of like Web3 or

space travel or, you know, who's, like, what are all the companies that are involved in disaster relief after a fire? It's like you might not be able to tell the difference between these models based on like the responses. They're actually valuable to you. And so then this becomes more of a distribution and cost question. Well, the whole, the whole other thing. thing, I think Vitorio posted about this, it's getting to a point pretty much now where the models are becoming smarter than the average person. So the average person cannot tell the difference. Like if the model gets 10% smarter. Yeah. Like, you know, compare this. If you talk to a literal genius in a specific field, if they were to get 10% smarter about just in general about their topic,

you wouldn't really be able to tell. Totally. Totally. Totally. So far beyond. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And how many times in business are you like, are you like, I need like, like, like, there are very few businesses where you were just like, God, I got a 150 IQ guy on my team, but like I would kill for 160 IQ person. Yeah. It's like usually it's like, I need just like, I need a bunch of room temp killers. Exactly. We're going to be. A lot of times. And so. And so it really comes down to like, okay, you know, you have good enough AI. It's AGI. It's it's 130 IQ or something. And it's. solid and then it's integrated properly. And it's working reliably. That's why the goalpost shifted out from AGI to ASI because everyone's like, oh, we got AGI and it's not, you know, didn't paperclip me.

Exactly, exactly. And so. But yeah, we should get into the NVIDIA case. Yeah. So I think we should switch over to the summary for this because there's a few different interesting things. So, and you can think about NVIDIA's moat as basically four different components.

One, they have high-quality Linux drivers. They have Kuda as an industry standard, which is the language that you use to write software to run on the GPS in parallel. Then they have a fast GPU internet technology that they acquired from Melanox in 2019. And they have a flywheel effect where they can invest their enormous profits

into more R&D. And the thesis of this piece is that all four, of those are under threat and we'll kind of go through that. But just to break those down. Yeah. And this is the story of all hyper profitable enterprises in history is by having these excess profits, you put a target on your back and then a bunch of people try to eat into them in different ways. Yep. And so there's this interesting thing where there's this question of if you believe that the future prospects of AI are almost unimaginably bright. Like you're a total AI bowl, there's still the question of why should one company extract the majority of the profit

pool from the technology, Nvidia? And so the Wright Brothers Airplane Company, in all its carnations across many different firms today, isn't worth more than $10 billion, despite them inventing and perfecting the technology well ahead of everyone else. And while Ford has a respectable market cap of $40 billion, that's just 1.1% of Nvidia's current market cap. And so there's this question more than fart coin too. And so there's this question of like, like, you can be super bullish on AI. Like you can,

you can make a bare case for, for Nvidia without making a bear case for AI is basically, like the first, the first, you know, point that he's making. And so, uh,

you need to look at AMD. They make respectable GPUs, which is such and such a slight. Uh, that on paper have comparable numbers of transistors, which are mostly using similar process nodes. Sure, they aren't as fast or advanced as,

as advanced as Nvidia GPUs, but it's not like Nvidia GPUs or 10x faster or something like that. In fact, in terms of naive raw dollars per flop, AMD GPUs are something like half the price of Nvidia GPUs. And so there's all this question. Now, a lot of this comes down to talent. So extremely talented programmers in AI, they tend to just think and work in Kuta. And so you hire a guy for 650K per year is the example here. You're not going to be like day one.

Hey, we want you to use AMD because it'll help us save 5%. They would quit and go work at any number of other firms that it would allow them. Exactly. Yeah. And then the other thing, NVIDIA is known as interconnect, essentially the bandwidth that connects thousands of GPUs together efficiently so they can be jointly harnessed.

And so a lot of this stuff, they acquired this Israeli company, Melanox back in 2019 for a mere $6.9 billion for NVIDIA. And this acquisition provided them with their industry-leading internet We should go back and do a historical size gong. Oh, yeah, totally. Without acquisition. And so, like, a lot of, a lot of what Nvidia gets right is not actually the dollar per flop performance.

It's all about if you write the, if you write the AI software with the great algorithm and you have all the data, the last thing you want to do is be dealing with a bunch of bugs. And I'm sure some analysts back in the day would have said, oh, you know, Nvidia's profit is going to be compressed because AMD is undercutting them so hard. They'll have to react. But that hasn't been the case. Yeah. And you look at George Hots, who kind of hates Nvidia. I don't know if he actually hates them, but he's like been pushing against them and saying we need open source solutions.

We need different options. He was really hoping that AMD would be the option. And so he tried to rewrite some AI code onto AMD. And they had so many bugs in their drivers that he was just like, this is a new. untenable. And then he got a call from Lisa Sue, the CEO, happens to be Jensen Wong's niece or cousin or something like that. And she was like, oh, okay, George Hatz is on the case. Like, we'll sort this out. Don't worry. We got it. And then like a year later, there was another like expose on like, and AMD's like broken drivers. And yeah. And this exact same new cycle happens where it's like,

oh, the developer community is freaking out about how bad AMD is Lisa Sue's on the case. She's going to make it happen. And it's like, okay. Like, You've got to show us something at this point. You've heard that you were saying that you're going to fix this, but it doesn't feel like it's getting fixed. And so it's funny, AMD, even with an inferior product and inability to react to a pretty important customer. Like if George was successful, that would be the best, you know, in creating this open source solution to layer over AMD chips, that would have been the best possible things for their business. Yeah. Yet AMD has continued to do well just by nature.

being an elephant in the room, even if they're not the largest, right? Yep. And so there are a couple companies that are trying to take shots at Nvidia. MLX, Triton, and Jacks are undermining the CUDA advantage by making it easier for AI developers to target multiple backends. So essentially, you write the algorithm for the AI once, and then you can run it on different chips. Obviously, this is an interesting flywheel because LLMs can actually translate between different

programming languages fairly effectively. So there should be ways to take your Kuta code and port it to AMD faster. But if the underlying software is broken, it doesn't matter if you wrote it correctly. Like, it's not on you. The bug is with the actual hardware maker. And then LLMs are getting capable enough to help port things to alternative architectures. GPU interconnect helps multiple GPUs work together on tasks like model training. Companies like Cerebrus are developing enormous chips that can get way more done on a single chip. Have you seen Cerebris? it's like so when you make a GPU you typically there's a there's like a big disc that you might have seen someone hold up yeah it's a massive chip and then that's what that's what's called

a wafer and they and they etch the GPU transistors onto this massive wafer and then they cut them and then out of one wafer there might be a hundred GPUs that go into invidia yep you know GPU chips basically and and and those go into like the boxes with all the memory and all the other stuff that's on there. And those have gotten bigger and bigger. And you've probably seen those Apple demos where it's like the M1, the M1 Pro, and it's like two. And then the M1 Max and it's like four. And that's all just like bigger and bigger slices of that wafer. Now, Sarah Briss is saying like, what if the whole wafer was just one GPU? Yeah. Well, it could have talked to itself really, really fast because it's all connected. And you'd have much more performance. Now, the problem

and what they've run into is that if there's a flaw anywhere on that wafer, you have to throw the whole thing away. Whereas if Nvidia says, hey, yeah, out of that huge wafer, we're trying to get 100 things. If there's three flaws, yeah, we got 97% yield. That's fine. Yeah. And so as you scale up, you run the risk of dropping your yield.

And then there's a whole bunch of other problems that Cerebus has had to work through. But I think the company is still around doing well and we should dig into them more. But there have been a number. And then there's also a new generation of companies like etched that are trying to build chips specifically just for the transformer architecture, just for inference or there's a whole bunch of companies that are doing that. And so those massive Nvidia margins are a huge incentive for other companies to catch up. Microsoft, Amazon, meta, Google, and Apple, they all have their own internal silicon projects where basically they go to TSM and say, hey, this is the workload that we need. We're doing AI inference in the cloud, like make us this chip. And Google has the tensor processing unit, the TPU, and a lot of these other companies are

scaling up these internal silicon projects. And what's under-discussed is like, it's no secret that there's a strong power law distribution of NVIDIA's hyperscalor customer base with a handful of top customers representing the lion's share of high-margin revenue. How should one think about the future of this business when literally every single one of these VIP customers is building their own custom chips specifically for AI training an inference. And so, like, obviously, you know, meta, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, these companies are the ones that are saying, yeah, we want 100,000 GPUs. We want a million

GPUs. Yeah, and it's funny. It's funny. So, so, Nvidia has the margins of a luxury product. Yep. But they are building a product that goes and sits in a data center. Yep. And nobody sees it. No, no, no, no consumer is going to say, well, I actually really want my model to be running on Nvidia chips. No one cares. Like, so brand matters in the sense that, the Nvidia brand stands for high quality software and hardware and all the stuff. And Jensen is signing some girls, you know, breasts, right, or signing something on, you know, remember that shot? Oh, yeah.

That was, that was, that was close to the top. Yep. But, but, but now they're in a position where, uh, again, companies want to pay for the result. In hindsight, it was obvious. NVIDA down 15% and Jensen is signing someone's shirt. but it's edgy. It's very rock star of him. Yeah. Great moment in history. Certainly fine.

But again, consumers don't care that where they're, you know, the Silicon that their, their query is running on. Ultimately, the hyperscalers don't care either. They just want the product experience, right? Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. And so that's it. That's a, you know, the reason that Hermes has durable margins across 200 years despite making 90% as well. Yep. is that people want to wear, they want to gift, you know, their loved one and their MES product, right? Same thing with Rolex or Petac or any of these other brands.

So just a different category. And so the last quarter of the article talks about the seismic waves rocking the industry right now caused by Deepseek V3 and R1. V3 remains the top ranked open weights model despite being around 45X more efficient in training than its competition. Bad news if you are selling GPUs.

R1 represents another huge breakthrough in efficiency both for training and inference. The DeepSeek R1 API is currently 27 times cheaper than OpenAIs 01 for a similar level of quality. And so again, I don't think this was a zero to one innovation with Deepseek. I think it's very much China is good at taking something that already has been invented, making it cheap, and that's what they've done. And when we deeped over the company a little bit,

we saw that what these guys are high-frequency hedge fund quant traders. they're really good at writing optimized code. And it seems like what they took was Open AI has done a bunch of innovations with transformers, which didn't come from Open AI, but then were popularized by them, the reasoning model, the chain of thought stuff, all this stuff. And Deep Seek, the team was able to just bake it down. And the reason this is like the reason this might be bearish for Nvidia is that if you can bake down this model to a point where, yeah, actually, it's so simple that we can get it to run on AMD.

people will. And then AMD might, and then it becomes more of price war. It's very different when you're like, look, whoever gets to GPT4 level models first, we'll have market entry into this new chatbot era, which is exactly what happened. Spare no expense. Pay the 90% margins to Nvidia. Build the super cluster. Yeah, the interesting thing about the foundation model wars right now is everybody's racing and raising against ASI, right? Investors are saying we will invest in Open AI at $150 billion, even with the massive losses because if they achieve ASI it's going to be broad it's going to be incredibly valuable yet they're simultaneously all giving away that technology not like necessarily necessarily the bleeding edge but they're basically giving it away to everyone which is an interesting

place to be yep the other dynamic that's fascinating with with R1 is they're they're making these crazy claims right they trained it on with five million bucks it was a small team it was a side project. They simultaneously put out so much research on it that clearly stands up, right? I was messaging with Spore this morning and word grammar and some other accounts on X that are that are kind of digging into the actual paper and trying to understand it. And they're all like, yeah, it stands up. It seems like very legit. So it's this simultaneous thing of like putting up out huge amounts of research that seems like legit and like real breakthroughs, but also probably lying about a bunch of stuff, right?

It says in the article here. Both can be true. Yeah, both can be here. Both can be true. He says in the article, who knows if any of this is really true or it's merely some kind of front for the CCP or Chinese military. And I wanted to give an example that I thought was funny. So in my experience in China, I don't think people will, you know, lie potentially slightly

more than in Western culture. Yep. Who know, you know, I'm sure somebody will try to correct me on that. But I had a funny story. When I was studying abroad in China, my professor said, hey, like got kind of a weird opportunity for me and my buddy who's actually 610. So call him to you, could mog you. He's like, hey, so like kind of a weird opportunity.

But he did that in China? He was like 6'6 before. Yeah, yeah. You got the extension. Yeah. I might have to go. No, so this is a crazy story. So our professor, who's from the U.S. Bay Area, he goes, hey, I got kind of a weird job.

Like train ticket, hotel paid $500 for like to work tomorrow. So we go out to this tiny village and our professor takes us to meet what ends up being like the local like state government. And they paraded us around pretending that we were English teachers because that state was like top, bottom three in terms of like learning capabilities and like standardized testing. And they filmed the entire thing and used it to imply that they were bringing in all these international teachers. But like we were not teachers. We were literally like paid actors. And we had like we had like dinner and like lunch with like the state like the, like the I forget his formal title, but it was effectively like the governor. And they were made this whole basically like video about how like look we're bringing in these like foreign like educators and all this stuff.

It's completely made up. They just paid us cash like literally in an office. level of like thank you deeply fraudulent so like I was just like a paid actor uh foreshadowing you know being a newscaster here deeply American too yeah and and um most bullish thing I've ever heard but it would literally they'd take they'd take me into a classroom with all the kids yeah and they would have me just like point around and like talk to the kids wow but like none of the audio is captured and it apparently I never actually got access to the clip but they were just using it as like a marketing to be able to show the more senior um you know people you know at presumably

the sort of federal level of the government that they were like making strides and like actually taking it seriously. Wow. And so I just whenever I see anything coming out of these, you know, a Chinese lab, I just, anytime you see something coming out of a Chinese lab, you got to ask some questions. Ridiculous. Someone else said the model, we don't know, but the model could have been trained by a bat. Yeah. Yeah. So, so back to like some of the, There is this interesting, like, just like cognitive dissonance between the fact that, like, you can go use R1 and see that it's good. Like, it's not controversial to just say, like, the model works.

Like, they clearly copied effectively. The question is just, you know, there's some questions about cost and, you know, are they subsidizing it? How much does it actually cost to inference? Is it really that much cheaper than the current stuff? But this type of model compression happens all the time. This happened with, do you remember those? those AI avatars.

Yeah. So those AI avatars came through this pathway of something called, I think it was called like ControlNet and then and then Google launched a paper, but they didn't open source the code called like deep dream or something, Dream Fusion or something like that. And then someone implemented that paper, but it needed to run on like a cluster of GPUs to do it. So you would upload a bunch of photos of yourself and then a bunch of photos of the style that you wanted.

And then you could prompt it. And it was all built basically on like stable diffusion. So I think it was called like deep diffusion or something like that. Or stable, dream stable, stable dream, something like that. Anyway. And then slowly people figured out that they could compress the model more and get better results just by being a little bit more memory efficient here. And then eventually it came to the point where you could run it on a single graphics card

and get pretty good results because it had been optimized so much. And there was actually this guy, Joe Penna, who was like a guitar YouTuber who just got really into this stuff and he wrote a lot of the code and optimized it. It was crazy. It was a crazy story. Anyway, so for a while, it was like, you had to be at a top lab with like a server farm to do one of these like AI avatars. Then like a couple weeks later, it was like, if I went and rented a single server for like a couple bucks an hour, I could do it. And I did it for like me and my friends. And everyone was like, this is so cool. How'd you do this? This is amazing. And then like two weeks later, that app. came out. I forget what it was called the AI Avatar app. It was really popular for like a week and Snapchat had their own. Yeah, yeah. And then eventually meta launched it right. And so there was this, there was this very quick optimization and implementation process, but it all happened in America. So it wasn't like controversial. It was just like, oh, cool. Like that thing that I saw papers about is now just on my phone, right? Yeah. And so it just seems like they've done a lot of that. It doesn't

seem like there's any new breakthroughs here. And I think the people that are giving them credit for inventing chain of thought reasoning is like wildly wrong. It says a major innovation in their suffice. But at the same, here's so. Yeah. You're right. At the same time,

this stood out to me. The newer R1 model and technical report might even be more mind blowing since they were able to beat Anthropic to chain of thought and are now basically the only ones besides open AI who have made this technology work at scale. That's not true though. Like, like Anthropic does have a chain of thought model. They just haven't released it publicly.

And the reason for that is just financials. and like their safety stuff. Yeah, for sure. Like, I'm not impressed by that. I don't know. That just doesn't seem, that just doesn't seem that revolutionary. I know,

I know, I know. That said, if you're a VC who has billion sub-dollar in Anthropic, you're calling the CEO yesterday,

probably screaming at them, right? Sure. We're bringing screaming back to the workplace. And, yeah. And so in terms of the actual, it does seem like

there was some innovation here in the same way that like when you, when China takes like a shoe that's made in America by a single person and then they have like a machine make it in a factory, like that is somewhat innovation, but that's not zero to one innovation. That's one to many. That's scaling and price,

which is like what they do really well. They did have a couple novel implementation details. They switched to eight-bit floating point numbers. So it's through the training process. So it's more memory efficient. They developed a clever system that breaks numbers into small tiles for activations and blocks for weights. So instead of just using like a single word for a token, they use multiple blocks.

They also cracked. But then this is the part that really frustrates me. They say with R1, deep seek essentially cracked one of the holy grails of AI, getting models to reason step by step without relying on massive supervised data sets. Their deep seek R1-0 experiment showed something remarkable. Using pure reinforcement learning with carefully crafted reward functions, they managed to get models to develop sophisticated reasoning capabilities completely autonomously. This wasn't just about solving problems.

The model organically learned to generate long chains of thought, self-verify work, and allocate more computation time to harder problems. And so they did do some things where they changed the reward function. And so basically, like, if you have it work on math problems that it can formally verify with like a calculator, then it's like it can work through those and then just check its work and be like, okay, I was thinking correctly. And so this is the same way. that Lisa Dahl got beat by AlphaGo because AlphaGo was able to play.

Move 37, was able to play, you know, trillions of games in synthetically, like just with itself. And that's where it generated all the training data. And so it seems like R1 did the same thing. But even this is not new. Like if you go back two years ago when Sam Altman got fired from OpenAI, there was all this question two years ago. It was the end of 2023. That's crazy. So it happened like late 2023, so a year and a half.

But there was all these questions like, what did Ilius see? You remember this whole thing? This whole meme? And so the information tried to answer that. And they wrote this article that you'll see is like, okay, they were building this a year and a half ago. And it says one day before he was fired by Open AI's board last week, Sam Altman alluded to a recent technical advance the company had made that allowed it to push the veil of ignorance back and the frontier of discovery forward.

It's like good marketing lingo. But what he actually says is they used Ilya Sutskiver's work to build a model called QSTAR that was able to solve math problems that it hadn't seen before, an important technical milestone. Because LLMs are great at memorizing stuff, but they have historically not been good at solving new problems. A demo of the model circulated within Open AI in recent weeks, and the pace of development alarmed some researchers focused on AI safety. The work of Suscoverse team, which was not previously been reported, and the concern inside the organization suggested that tensions within Open AI about the pace of its work will continue even after Altman was reinstated as CEO Tuesday night. And so this QSTAR thing, they don't really have that much here, but it says, Sutskivir's breakthrough allowed open AI to overcome limitations on obtaining enough high-quality data to train new models, according to the person with knowledge, a major obstacle for developing next-generation models. What is Q-Star?

Q-star became, there was like that Apple group. Do you remember this thing? It was like the strawberry emoji was like a big thing, strawberry gang, and they were like Open AI strawberries, now the code name. They renamed the code name like four times, and then it finally came out. was 01. Yeah. And so we, we have this. Like, this is, this has launched. And it didn't kill anyone. And also, it's like kind of a nice to have. Like, you don't even need to use it all the time. And so basically, you know, for years, Sutscovert and working on ways to allow language models like GPT4 to solve tasks that involved reasoning like math and science problems. In 2021, he launched a project called GPTZero. What did they launch? Deepseek R1. They're two, they're a year and a half behind. Like, this is not, this is not, this.

not innovation here. Yeah. And so, yeah. It does seem that the primary innovation is the cost. Yep. And giving it away for free. Yep. Which they've done with DJI.

And we have, I think we had a post from somebody pointing out that there's this like illusion of choice. Yep. Where it's super, super cheap if you use. Yep. The Chinese sort of inference. Yep. basically. And then it gets dramatically more expensive as you. And so I haven't seen anything. Maybe I'm

wrong. Maybe there's something else deep in the paper that looks great and is a true breakthrough. It's open source. The paper's out there. So that will get ported back to Lama, to open AI, to anthropic. But I haven't seen that. What I've seen is a ton of optimization that went in to taking stuff like GPT Zero, which became Q Star, which became strawberry, which became 01. And they took 01 and they did a bunch of self-training, which is scary because the AI is talking to itself and creating, it's getting smarter by itself in some ways because it's kind of like what happened with AlphaGo. But they took that and they optimized, they completely optimized the model so it will run on much cheaper hardware and the inference will be cheaper, which is important because the test time

compute scaling law is new. And right now, you heard Sam say, we're losing money on some 01 users because they write a query and it thanks for five minutes and that's a whole server rack for firing for you know a couple bucks and so um and so yeah one one one relevant example so it says the recent scuttlebut on twitter and blind uh is that these models caught meta completely off guard and that they perform better than the new llama four models which are still being trained yep out apparently the llama project within meta has attracted a lot of attention internally from high-ranking technical executives. And the result is that they have something like 13 individuals working on the Lama stuff who each individually earn more per year in

total compensation than the combined training cost for deep seek V3 models, which outperform it. Again, we don't actually know. Alex from scale is saying, you know, the training cost was way higher. He said, how do you explain that to Zuck with a straight face? He's going to tell them to frick off. Again, I think that's conflating. How does Zuck keep smiling while shoveling multiple billions of dollars to Nvidia to buy 100K H100 to when a better model was trained using just 2K H100 for a bit over $5 million? So it does, it does, this is why last night, Sotia is going out there. A lot of people are about to learn about Jevin's paradox.

Some people are calling it Javon's paradox. No one's calling it that. Only if you're extremely online and you've done. and you're not listening to podcasts about it. Yeah, yeah. You might be misproncing it. But, but then it goes on, but you better believe that meta and every other big AI lab

is taking these deep seek models apart, studying every word in those technical reports and every line of the open source code they released, trying desperately to integrate these same tricks and optimizations into their own training and inference pipelines. So what's the impact of all that? Well, naively, it sort of seems like the aggregate demand for training and inference compute should be divided by some big number.

Maybe not by 45, but maybe by 25 or even 30. 30 because whatever you thought you needed before these model releases, it's now a lot less. Sure. So I think this highlights that like a good AI model is no longer just like how big are the parameters and what are the weights and like what does it do by itself? Like there's actually a stack of capabilities that you need to think about. So at the bottom, yes, you need a robust model and that's what their deep seek V3 is. And that's what he's talking about when he talks about Lama 4. Lama 4, I mean, I don't even know what they're terming that phrase, but I assume it's just the underlying core model. And yeah, that might be underperforming or not, or might be too expensive to train or something.

But a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that they just haven't, like, if, if deep seek trained on GPT4 output tokens, then all the data has already been kind of cleaned because it's only training on like, of course it's going to sound like GPT4 because it doesn't have any junk in there. It's not going to accidentally sound like, you know, some spam on the internet because that was already cold when you pulled the data from the model. And so there's that. Then level two is like the chain of thought, how good is your reasoning model on top? We know 01, 03 and R1 all seem to be pretty good on top of the base model. So I don't even know what Lama is doing. Are they going to release an O, like an O1 competitor with Lama 4? It should because clearly test time computes extremely.

important, but then you open source this and then you got to inference it and that's really expensive. But they'll probably do that. So they might be comparing apples to oranges there, comparing Lama 4, which is just a base model to a reasoning model, which is not fair. And then there's all the UI and orchestration that happens on top of it. And I think the chat GPT app is certainly better than the deep seek app right now, just in terms of when you open up deep seek, you can't talk to it. People are saying deep seek is very much. targeted at developers. Sure.

Which is, you know, if you're China and you're seeing this explosion of new app layer products and you're saying, hey, long-term value will occur to the app layer. Yep. Why not release a product that any developer can use to deliver cool experiences to their end users? Yep. It's like, hey, we don't have to worry about building consumer products because every Chinese app feels like a T-Mu software for the most part.

Yeah. It's actually very smart to be like, hey, instead of using open. A.I. Which your consumers don't care about what's under the hood either. Use our basically free app. Yep. And so it feels like it's it's disruptive in the sense that in the way that Lama was disruptive, where a lot of people that were like, my Open AI API bill is really high. And thank you, Zuck. You just gave me a free version that I can. I still have to pay inference costs, but I can just host it on AWS. And now it's way cheaper for me. And this will drive the cost down even further. So hugely disruptive to the B2B space. It's disruptive to so many different narratives as well, right?

Where the fact that Satya on a Sunday night feels like he needs to tweet out links. Zuck, earning season, he's got to justify. Why are we spent, why are we buying 100,000 of these again? And Zuck has also no, it's not like he hasn't gone back on big infrastructure spending before. Totally. The metaverse, everybody's like, dude, you're an idiot. Like stop trying to make the metaverse a thing. and he's like, okay.

Like, he eventually, like, got it. Yep. And diverted all that budget back to AI CAPEX. Yeah. And so now I'm actually very interested to see Jensen come out and talk about this because he's got to get shareholders confident that the demand is still going to look like what they've been projecting. Yeah. He just did a new interview, but I think they already filmed it.

So I don't think it's going to cut. Yeah. I think it's going to drop and not have anything related to deep seek. But the interesting thing is like, is like we keep going back to like Open AI versus meta, obviously, like, distribution is really important. And the question is, like, can DeepSeek figure out a way to get distribution? Even barring all of the, like, oh, it might get banned or there's like CCP stuff going on, just in the knockout, dragout fight.

$10,000 tariff on every query. Yeah. But even just if you look at the app store as like a free market, like there's already a lot of people that have chat GPT in the, installed, they have the free version, you bring them 01 and you've changed the reasoning logic, so the UI is the same. And all of a sudden, it's like, yeah, I'll just stick with what I know. It's already, it's a better app. It's already installed. Deepseek was very clever in basically, like, building the API infrastructure to just immediately be able to switch. It's like, just copied open AI on that front too. Totally. And then, and then also, you know, you're still

competing with like the average AI consumer might wind up just using Google. Google or oh yeah like yeah when I when I want to talk to an AI I just go into Instagram because like llama's there and they don't even know what Lama is and they're like yeah I love I love meta AI using it through WhatsApp like yeah there are people that do that there are billions of people that do that it's crazy and and so yes like tech Twitter is very much like of course like everyone's going to download like the best model because it performed 2% better on this email like no not necessarily here's the thing that made it really obvious that that the the the The distribution does matter.

Going number one in the app store was like legit in any way. The developer name of the app is like just a really long string of Chinese characters. And I just promise you that them sitting there with 227 reviews. The review thing's weird. And American consumer, this looks, this screams to me. Most of the time I see Chinese characters, it's some like spam bot text that I just got. And I'm like, okay. I mean, if you search for deep seek in the app store,

will see like chat GPT comes up but then also like like chat AI and it looks exactly like chat GPT and it's a chat GPT rapper that's just taking like revenue basically from them and just acting as like a like a portal just to a chat app and so obviously the the the app store rankings are momentum based and so I think I think deep see did have a ton of momentum so they did get to the top of the charts I don't know that that's durable and also Nikita was saying that there might be a lot of bots promoting it to try and rank in the app store. But I just have a really hard time to believe that like this. China literally has is notorious for having you can go there.

You can go to China, Chinese firms to buy internet traffic and downloads and anything. Totally. So just diverting some of that, those resources to, hey, let's go number one in the charts. Because I came away from this thinking in many ways, they like if this is a front for the CCP, which I won't grab the hat. just creating economic chaos in the United States being like, hey, there's a lot of leverage in the system. All these firms, you know, France is lending to data center development in the U.S. A lot of real estate guys are saying that that's, you know, usually a bad sign when the French get involved. And, but, but yeah, so if you were just looking at it as, hey, let's, let's lob an economic grenade over to the United States, make the app go number one.

and kind of like just make everybody freak out and kind of be distracted, right? And also like taking off the conspiracy had, even if we were just talking about like an ally, like let's say Deep Sea came from Japan and they were just trying to compete. It's very logical to say, hey, we were able,

we had some cracked engineers who were able to drive the inference cost way down with a bunch of innovations, which are real. Let's try and release this app that's as good as the $200 a month chat GPT app for free, get a bunch of people to use it and then get all that RLHF data. So then they can use that to fine-tune their models because there's this big data feedback war.

So look at what China is doing, right? They just announced the equivalent of like $500 billion of new like state funded investment. And that could easily be going in. Yeah. Yeah. But even if there's private capital, it would still make rational sense. I just if if we no longer needed all this extreme CAPEX, China wouldn't be launching the free app and then not doing that. Yep.

They clearly. Yep. No, no. It's totally reasonable. So let's, should we finish with that? Yeah, let's go to the timeline. I was just going to say, we kind of need to finish up on like why.

So at the high level, Nvidia faces an unprecedented convergence of competitive threats that make its premium valuation increasingly difficult to justify at 20x forward sales and 75% gross margins. The company's supposed moats and hardware software and efficiency are all showing concerning cracks. The whole world,

thousands of the smartest people on the planet backed by untold billions of dollars of capital resources are trying to assail that. them at every angle. And so, yeah, perhaps most devastating is Deep Seek's recent efficiency breakthrough, achieving comparable model performance at approximately 1.45th of the compute cost, which again, you don't know if it's real. But anyways, it'll be interesting to play out, and Vida is down 15% last time I checked

public. And we'll see where they are tomorrow. Let's go to some hot takes about Deep Seek, keeping you up to date on what happened on the timeline. I want to start with this short thread by Dylan Field, the founder of Figma, Dylan Field. He says, I guess it's hot take time. So here we go. I love this. One, always assumed there would be a reckoning moment in public markets over CapEx spend for AI.

Two, it will take a lot more share price punishment for any of these companies to reconsider the number of GPUs they are buying in 2025. Three, there are likely order of magnitude improvements to training and inference available, though not enough. though not necessarily achieved yet. Four, deep seek trained on outputs of American models, which we discussed. Five, it would be surprising to me if deep seek's claims about training costs were true. Six, from a public safety standpoint, an open source model of unknown alignment is an extremely interesting and challenging threat vector. We talked about this a little bit, like what if embedded in the model, it like tries to change

your political philosophy very slowly over time. So already, already so perplexity integrated deep seek. Really? Into, you can, you can opt to use their model. I mean, people have wired it up to cursor immediately. And if you ask the, depending on which model you select, if you select deep seek and ask it about Tiananmen Square, it'll be much, much sort of like more, more.

It wasn't that big of a deal. Just calm down. That's exactly how they position it. It was like they don't talk about, they really, really downplay it. So they admit that it's a thing. Yeah. But they don't admit that it was a disastrous moment. Actually, let's talk about Ken State for a minute, okay?

Yeah, yeah. You know, like right back at you, American. Yeah. Seven, if Deep Seeks mobile app continues to top charts, it will join TikTok in the discussion in the U.S., we need to block this app discussion. I think it's already there. Yeah, one thing that's interesting is when TikTok started to chart

because they were spending, not only people love the app, they were starting to spend a ton of money on user acquisition. The app, and especially the video feed, was like fundamentally better than the alternatives. Yep. And so they were spending all that money on user acquisition to drive downloads, but then consumers got a better experience. Yep. Now consumers are like, well, I already have chat GBT.

This doesn't do any net, nothing that's sort of like net new for me, especially for the average person who's like, make me a recipe. It does if you don't have a premium subscription on chat GBT. Like if you have chat GBT free version, and you download deep seek, that is a massive upgrade. If you're a free user. But if the average request is, how do I make a recipe with these three items? Yeah.

It's more for like power users in my opinion. I agree. I agree. And I do think, Sam already addressed it and said that he's going to bring a set number of reasoning 01 queries, which are expensive to the free tier. Yeah.

And so this is a, this is certainly like a financial, change, but in terms of just retention and user adoption, like, it's not insurmountable. New Moon Capital says, just so I understand, people are bearish on AI because deep seek innovation improved efficiency by 30x. And with that and that with larger clusters and continued scaling of synthetic data and inference compute, next generation models are going to be like 100x better than 03. So AGI is bearish for AI. Got it. And it's a good point. And it's a good point. Yeah, I mean, all of those innovations, even if they weren't open source, I mean, they get ported back so fast because there's only a few secrets, like eight, eight bit floating point numbers instead of 32 bit. Oh, that can save a lot. Like someone's going to try that eventually. And I think most of this stuff was probably like either in the pipeline to change. I mean, we talked about like the test time inference is going to get so much cheaper when this is baked down into silicon, but we're just not there yet because we're updating models every two years.

The thing that's most fascinating to me is all these model companies, Mistral, Anthropic, cohere that really don't publicly have these capabilities, where now anybody employed at those companies basically shouldn't sleep for the next, however long it takes to get on par with the free model. Otherwise, you almost don't have a right to exist in many ways. Yeah, that's a good point. Sheel says over one third of Nvidia sales go to China, probably 40 billion. billion last year. The Singapore backdoor is real. Inviti even says shipments to Singapore are insignificant while 22% of billings last quarter were to Singapore. And so pretty, pretty staggering

numbers. So they can still sell to China just certain chips, different chips, which again, like they don't work for the biggest training runs. But if you have a team like DeepSeek that can optimize around it and say, oh, memory bandwidth is a problem with the nerfed GPUs. All of a sudden, And it's like, okay, just buy a trillion of these chips that are, you know. This is the interesting dilemma that people in the U.S. face, right, is everybody's holding a bunch of Nvidia, right? The entire market's basically propped up by Nvidia. Yep.

And so you kind of want to be mad at Nvidia for saying, you know, why are you providing, you know, chips to our political enemy? But at the same time, it would tank, you know, it would cut the market cap in half, maybe. Yep, yep. Yep. And we talked about, I think, Friday about potential backdoors. So Singapore, could be one. It could be anywhere in the world, right? It could be. I mean, the numbers to Singapore are staggering here. In the three months ended October 27th, 2024. So like deep chip ban, just not last quarter, but the quarter before, Q3, 7.7 billion dollars of chips to

Singapore. And it's like, Singapore's not buying that many chips. Yeah. And I think, I think on one of the shows, I was a little skeptical of this backdoor and you were much more bullish on it and I think you're 100% right seeing the data there. Philip LaFaunt says should AI models be allowed to be open sourced? Do you know this guy? What was it?

Why did this one? So this is the founder of CO2 management. Oh yeah. And he, I believe, has pretty large exposure to opening AI. And so this post went viral because last night. I think he probably was enjoying his weekend. Yep.

He sees the news on deep seat. He's really really not happy with them. And it's a funny, it is a pretty funny question. There was a reason that OpenAI shifted from being open source and innovating for the world to innovating for themselves and trying to do sort of rent seeking behavior. And this is what this Chris from, what's Chris Pike? Pike. He talked about, he's talked a lot about how AOL was trying to basically build. the closed internet that they could basically collect a toll on and how that really didn't work.

And his point of view is that OpenAIs is the AOL of AI. We have no idea if that, you know, and anyway, so we don't know, but I think it's pretty funny. Yeah. So funny question to be asking yesterday. As an investor, yeah. Yeah. Let's get a Martin Screlly.

He says it took Wall Street one month to read this Carpathie tweet. And a month ago, Carpathie tweeted, Deepseek, the Chinese AI company, making it look easy today with an open weights release of a frontier grade LLM trained on a joke of a budget, 248 GPUs for two months. And Wall Street kind of picked up on it today with the R1 release. Dolly Bally says Jensen going to have to get on a podcast this week. And that's true. That's very true.

I want to hear a yes to say. The market needs to be comforted. For sure. I want to hug from Jensen with the leather. jacket on you want to you know kind of like know that it's going to be okay and and I think he should avoid signing women's t-shirts just take a week off yeah yeah no more top signals yeah no more top signal just just really explain to me like you know minor improvements in kuda talk to me about the bandwidth interface problem and your memory and there was it's funny the what's a guy uh uh that's

always posting top, you know, the top signal guy, CNBC. Oh, okay. Lots of people. Kramer. Kramer. So Kramer posted five days ago, like open AI, or sorry, he's like, NVIDIA is like unstoppable. But if you actually, the thing about Kramer that I don't think, like people that just

sort of like only see him when he's getting dunked on, he posts that stuff about every company all the time. Yeah, exactly. And it's bullish, bearish, bullish, bullish. He's just like cycling back and forth. So I don't think it's a signal that. There was actually like an economic study on Kramer, and they found that he did beat the market over a pretty long period of time, but he did it basically with high beta. So he was just like leverage long the market.

And so his ups were really good and then his downs were really bad. But on net, he's still outperformed. There's always a bull market somewhere. There's always a bull market somewhere. Let's go to Logan Bartlett. He says, so wait, China actually thinks they can succeed with a lower cost ripoff of an American product. good luck with that. It's a good point.

This is what they do. It's the teal thing of like America has been good at zero to one innovation. China's good at one to many. And we are in the one to many phase very clearly of AI. And I think people hadn't really taken that to heart. There's still the question about consumer adoption and is there a monopoly of power to accrue on the consumer side of the application layer? But certainly on the foundational hot swappable LLM tech.

pretty pretty commoditized yeah daniel says finance guys are like i f knew you nerds were full of s hit i don't know how to not curse anymore i'm trying to not curse in the show um about needing that much money that didn't come across well at all we'll have to work on that um tom says apple's a i is so bad they don't even include it in the a i sell off that's i mean maybe that's a bull case for apple they didn't like go too hard and like tell that whole story like they they This is what you've said before. They have the distribution so they can kind of sit back and wait to see how things pan out. They can partner with Open AI and say you can be our AI provider, but you've got to pay us some egregious amount per year.

More like scapegoat. They don't pay each other. There's no money changing hands. But anything that goes wrong, they can just be like, oh, it's like an AI's problem. Like it wasn't. No, but presumably in the future they could. And then Open AI gets a lot of data, hopefully, if they can do that. There was just a deep dive on the new Siri, and they asked it, like, who won the Super Bowl in 1989?

Who won the Super Bowl in 1999? And I got like every single one of them wrong. While ChatGBT didn't. So there's like something very odd going on. And like the previous version of Siri could do that just because it would just be like, oh, Super Bowl stats. Look it up in the database. They basically need to create a new name for Siri if they wanted to get adoption because it's been so bad for so long. They tried.

They call it just Apple Intelligence. I know. And so, but it's not working yet. But. Room temp. Apple, room temp. Okay, this is good from Dylan Patel. So this is like $2 trillion loss in market cap for a $6 million training run, ignoring cost of research ablations, distilled data from GPT, CAPX, for their various clusters, et cetera.

Imagine if China invests $300 million in a training run. It would reduce the world's GDP to zero. So very funny. It's great to see him shitposting through the chaos. It's fantastic. That's the only correct approach unless you're Satya and then you've got to post, you know. Speaking of Jevin's Paradox, this seems like an overreaction, says Gary Tan. Wall Street needs to read the Wikipedia page on Jevins' paradox.

In economics, Jevins Paradox, or Jevins' effect, occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used. the amount necessary for anyone use, but the falling cost of use induces, increases in demand enough that resource use is increased rather than reduced. And the classic example is energy consumption. There is a whole thesis around like nuclear power, energy will be too cheap to meter. And, oh, would that cause us to the energy markets to go down in value? Probably not because you would have insanely energy dense, like consumer products. Like right now, most of the energy markets. Like, Right now, most household appliances are gated by, well, we want to be energy efficient.

It's got to plug into a, you know, wall outlet. It's not just going to pull like a gigawatt of energy to like, you know, do your dishes. But maybe it could. And so Patrick O'Shaughnessy says, everyone about to be a Jevons Paradox expert. And that's true. So Satya Nadella posted Jevins Paradox strikes again as AI gets more efficient and accessible. we will see its use skyrocket turning it into a commodity. We just can't get enough of.

And he posts the Wikipedia. And Joe Wisenthal says, Microsoft CEO up late tweeting a link to the Wikipedia article on Jevin's Paradox. This is getting serious. And I agree with this. You have a guy from CO2 management, big position in Open AI. You've got Satya all feeling like they need to react in that moment on a Sunday when normally the corporate comms, you know,

you know, people will post around the clock, but normally the corporate comm strategy would be to turn around, you know, on a Monday, hey, let's all get together and like figure out what our response is for this. Everybody's like, we got to front run this, right? And they were right to some degree because of the sell-off. Obviously, they want to prevent as much of that as possible. Yep, yep, yep. I mean, I'm fully Jevin's Peradox build.

There's a good post from Chrisman Frank here, no idea. will happen in the wider market, but at synthesis, we immediately started thinking about product changes that are newly possible with a 95% cost reduction. I imagine there must be many such cases. And I've said this for a long time with like the custom X feed. Like I would love to have an LLM that I can prompt and say, this is what I want to see in my feed. And it reads every single post does a whole thinking deep dive on it and then decides, is this good for John or not? That's insanely compute expensive. Like it's completely prohibitive. It's completely prohibitive. prohibitively expensive. I wanted to read every email and do much, much more advanced spam filtering.

Where should it put it? Should it put it at the top of the inbox? Like every single news article I read, I wanted to scrape out all the texts, take out all the ads, formatted better. Like, give me a summary, like all these transformations. Every time I click a link, I want AI to run on that. And that's something that can only happen if it's actually as as free as the rest of the things that happen on your phone. Like, you know, if you want to switch your phone to gray scale, it just, the algorithm for reducing the color just happens like that. There's no, you don't think about like, oh, this will take extra compute. And it should be the same thing with AI.

So Dylan Patel says, deep seek V3 and R1 discourse boils down to this. Shifting the curve means you build more and scale more dummies. So he's fully Jevin's paradox pilled. On the left, we have the IQ 50-50 or 55 individual saying, now we can have even more AI and the Jedi at 145, also. saying, now we can have even more AI. And the midwit at 100 IQ says, more efficient training and inference means less compute and no one should be spending on scaling. Invitya is screwed. And Adam DeAngela posted basically the same thing, the midwit meme. Cheaper AGI will drive even more GPU demand.

And the midwit says deep seek efficiency will reduce GPU demand. And I agree with that. And a lot of, like, people have been dunking on some of these saying, oh, they're just trying to cover their tracks. They're in crisis management. All the stuff. it's like, well, no. Like there's clearly good arguments for both, right? We just went over the entire short case for Nvidia's stock. There are some good arguments in there. But it's more about like dynamics of Nvidia with the rest of the market than just like, oh, we don't need GPUs anymore.

Yeah. We're going to stop building computers. Hey, we're four or five years into birthing machine intelligence, which is going to transform and consume the entire services economy, the entire. me the entire and it's and oh yeah we should probably stop spending money on this or stop investing in this and at the same time China China at the state level committing to hundreds of billions of dollars a year of capex okay yeah and and and the same yeah the the the bear case for invidia is that uh you know there's a tPU from google that's trained on a on that's designed specifically for hyper efficient inference especially test time computing

scaling and invidia is less relevant in that paradigm but we're still so early on the architecture evolution of these models that it's it's almost too early to say now there are a lot of startups that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to to take shots at oh we think the we think the transformers staying around so we're going to optimize for transformers or we think chain of thought reasoning and test time compute is really important so we're going to focus on that there there was grok which was all about like it was very low memory but very high fast inference I don't know if you ever saw that demo before the xAI grok it was a different You got a Q instead of K.

You got groked. Let's go to Anarchy says artificial illusion of choice drives you to cope into keeping the 5X faster Chinese host after open router already chooses it by default due to its low cost. In terms of risk, second order effects, maximizing win rate percentage, this is a key problem. Yeah, so this was a response to something. I forget the exact because I was post I was out of control posting yesterday. But yeah, just showing that clearly, yes, they released it as an open source model, but clearly they want to eat all of that data. Yeah. Let's go to Jeff Lewis.

He says, fascinating to see some of the same folks who advocated hard for a TikTok ban, now promoting a CCP AI op, simply because they are jealous of a singularly transcendent American organization, Wild World. Have the most beautiful weekend. I love his emojis. It's the best to drop something. inflammatory and then just say but that's his mindset rocking in the free world he's he's working you know through bringing love to his

it's good a word grammar says Trump's logic for unbanging TikTok even if they are collecting our data data on the type of videos that 16 year olds like to watch isn't that important unfortunately the data collected through deep seek is actually very important yeah and again it's not just about the data it's about the influence

on it's psychological warfare, right? Yeah, this is hilarious. LMFAO, DeepSeaks API docs are basically, our API is compatible with OpenAI. Just download their thing and set the base URL and model name to us. Wow. Savage.

I mean, but that's the nature of like the Linux wars and versus Microsoft. Like, you know, can you get distribution? Can you build a monopoly in some sort of moat or on top of something that is deeply commoditized? You can just use Linux. No one does. You got to get those blue bubbles. I message. Dylan Patel, opening a hoc should have been a religion, not a nonprofit.

Imagine the tax savings. Mormon church in shambles. He's just on a roll. He's on fire. I love him. He's so good. Let's skip this and go to Pavel. This is a great one.

We can end on this because we've got to hop on a call. Pavel Asperuhov says, if your entire worldview on AI is dramatically shifting every three weeks, maybe you just don't know what's going on. Isn't. Oh. Is that what he meant to say?

Maybe you just don't know what's going on. No, no. He's saying like, he's saying like, this should be expected. Like you should have this like somewhat priced in. If you're just like, I had no idea that a model could be open source. This is crazy and cheap.

Yeah, that's a big thing. This has happened multiple times. Every venture back founder that was running a deeply unprofitable generative AI company has always been saying it's fine that we're running in the red right now because it's going to get 95%. Exactly. The cost is going to reduce by 95%. So now that it's happening, you don't really see the founders that are running these actual app layer companies at surprise because they're fine. It's really the hyperscalers, all the people doing the subsene amount of capex that now have to figure out ways to justify it. Yeah, yeah. It's more

I think you're right that the pressure's on the mistraals and the and the coheres. Yeah. And kind of like the players that are selling some sort of even anthropic, like they're selling API access and they don't have the runaway consumer adoption yet. Yeah, because they need to amortize the cost over a long period of time. But then if your model just got lapped and you spent a billion dollars on it. And they might have been, and they might have been expecting like, hey, this will hold for a little bit of time. But I bet you the good founders knew that, you know, Zuck was going to come out with something. Maybe he was going to open source it.

It's possible. Maybe he wasn't. It's also funny to think about so consumers, if you go to them and you say, hey, there's this, there's this thing that's like chat GPT and it's free. They're going to be like, well, I already don't pay for chat. GPT. Just go to chat.com and I just use that. It is. It is very odd.

It's not even to consumers who are so used to being able to query data for free. Yeah. It's not that ground. I think it really like just comes down to this, this concept of like there, there seems to be a massive pool of value in being the consumer AI company, the aggregator, the front page of artificial intelligence, getting installed on the home row of people's apps, setting it to the default search engine, setting it to the default web page when you open a website. And then the B2B market,

is going to be extremely competitive and developers are not going to care about brand or usability. They're just going to want the best thing for the best price. Welcome back to Technology Brothers, still the most profitable podcast in the world. Let's go to Signal. He says, honestly, I'm still baffled at the thought of the CCP going full scorched earth on AI by going open source. It wasn't even remotely on my bingo card. They're basically doubling down on Zuck's playbook, but scaling it up to state level, throwing their entire weight behind making world-class AI dirt cheap so nobody else,

especially the West, can monopolize it. The Chinese Quant Co flexing right now because a large portion of the West's AI development just got mired in prestige projects instead of profit-maximizing strategies, which is ironic because who's the capitalist again? China has no such qualms. They're ruthlessly practical when it comes to scaling. The Chinese shop figured out a way to tie reinforcement learning to actual efficiency flows faster than everyone else.

Not on the bingo card? I don't know. This didn't take me that much by surprise. It's also possible that OpenAI figured all this out didn't want to release it because they want to keep justifying, hey, we need to spend. I don't even know if it's,

I don't even know if it's like a justification of more capax. It's really just like, like until a competitive model goes free, you should not go free. is just basic econ 101. This is actually more capitalist. So, like, we are the capitalist. It's, like, charge until you can.

And now, what happened? Oh, free chat GPT users will get 20,01 queries per month. Like, Larry Ellison, Donald Trump, Massa, and Sam are in a war room right now. Definitely. Well, I mean, we still don't know if the old scaling law holds. That's the big question. If the old scaling law holds and GPT5 is good, and the big training run's important.

And having that, you know, not just those weights, having the weights are important, but also those first, you know, batch of, you know, tokens that it produces that you can't. I mean, it took them two years to pull all the data out of GPD4, right? Yeah. That's another way to look at this is like, yeah, like, obviously you trained on GPT4 outputs. Took you two years to get all that data together. If you have, it takes you another two years to do GPT5 and then the, the chip restreact. are even harsher.

And yeah, like, let's assume this is 2048, like Deep Seek has 2048 GPUs. Well, like, what if the next model, even their compressed version needs 20,000, right? Because it's still an order of magnitude, even to do their compressed model. That could be hard. That could be limited. We'll see. Singapore would like a word. Singapore would like a word.

Let's go to Atlas. Atlas says, you horny MFers really did say too much at the SFAI parties, huh? Atlas has been on a tear. I mean, it's so unbrand. It's like so in the zeitgeist, what a bangor. So good. So funny. I don't know.

It doesn't seem like that's what happened. It doesn't seem like, oh, one weird trick snuck out of a lab and got over there. It seems like they came up with their new tricks. And then they stole a bunch of data and maybe some GPUs. Yeah. And that didn't really have anything. Well, one thing. But I'm sure.

I'm sure China. these labs have people inside at all the major American labs. And so anything that is being discovered at the American labs is being ported back. But even that's not even happening at a party, right? It's just happening within. It's from within. I mean, yeah, that's always been the case of just like, do you need to worry about the girl at the SFAI party or do you need to worry about the guy who has GitHub access?

Yeah. And can just like copy paste code into, you know, notes app, which is happening. You're worried about the wrong gooner. Worried about the wrong gooner probably. Ridiculous. I mean, still, Q-Star. It's been two years, guys. Steal the stuff faster.

That's my message to the CCP. Step it up. Steal faster. I'm not impressed. Nick Carter, who's in the golden age now, he says, Deep Seek, just accelerated AGI timelines by five years. So focus on the gym.

Knowledge work is obsolete. Muscles are all that's left. 16K likes. This is golden retriever mode. You've got to be golden retriever maxing. be hot, friendly, and dumb. Intelligence is too cheap to meter. You don't need to worry about it anymore.

You need to repose that today. I know, I need to really coin that and own that. Coogan's law. Because he got close to this. He has the idea right, but he didn't have a coinage around it. But golden retriever maxing is the future. Intelligence too cheap to meter. Intelligence will be too cheap to meter.

There's no alpha in reading books anymore. Yeah. That's for sure. Growing Daniel says, Hey guys, my favorite Bay Area nonprofit is facing Chinese attacks and needs our help. I like that. We got to donate to Open AIs not. Yeah, yeah.

We got to do it. Why can't, I've, I cannot for the life of me, find a place to donate to the nonprofit. Just send a check. Just send a check. Just make it out to Mr. Samma. Yeah. Bucco Capital bloke says my entire Twitter feed this weekend. He leaned back in his chair confidently.

He peered over the brim of his glasses and said, with an air of condescension. Any fool can see the deep seek is bad for Envidia, perhaps mused his adversary. He had that condescending bastard right where he wanted him, unless you consider Jevin's paradox. All color drained from the confident man's face, his now trembling hands reached for his glasses.

How could he have forgotten Jevin's paradox? Imbecile, he wanted to vomit. I love that. Where is that? Is that a reference? It's probably from Devecy. It was probably generated by Deepseek. The prompt was probably like,

write a dramatic story between two people, you know, debating Deep Seek and Invidia and Jevin's Paradox. But I thought that was a great piece of writing. I really enjoyed that. 4K likes. You love to see it. That's a whole new format. Oh, totally.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. We should definitely do one of these. Put that aside. But this aside. We're going to remix that a million times. Josh Kushner says,

pro-American technologists openly supporting a Chinese model that was trained off of leading U.S. frontier models with chips that likely violate export controls and, according to their own terms of service, take U.S. customer data back to China. Hmm. That's a good point. Yeah, so here's where, here's where Josh has him. Taylor Lorenz is one of the biggest supporters of Deepseek.

So if she, you never want to be on the same side as Taylor Lorenz, except if you're talking about horses. That's true. It's true. She's got some credibility there. And the internet archive. She's got that. But yeah, it is interesting. Everybody's been, everybody that is, this is really exposing all the people that missed Open AI and that were frustrated with AI around regulatory capture, which is a pretty fair critique, right? There's, or there are some good arguments that Open AI have. has engaged in regulatory efforts around regulatory capture, saying, oh, you actually need to regulate us. Like, this is too dangerous. Like, please step in and trying to make it harder for new models to emerge and compete.

But still, it's such a bad look for people that are saying, you know, that are openly in favor of it and celebrating it as some win for humanity to get intelligence too cheap to meter when it's very clear. clearly that there's alternative sort of motives behind it. It is a huge vibe shift, though, from the days of like, GPT3 is dangerous and like this AI is going to kill us. GPT4 is so dangerous. Like they shouldn't have released it. Like this was one of the main, like, reasons why the board was worried about Sam Altman when they fired him.

They said, like, he just went out there and released chat GPT. Like, who knows what could happen? And it's like, yeah, people got like recipes and like a couple people probably wrote like spam articles and like other than that like nothing bad really happened. Yeah. Like there were probably some people that like got wrong medical information maybe but like that's already happening on the internet. So it's very odd. And with this one like no one's saying like, oh, it's dangerous that R1 is out there. It's too powerful.

Everyone's just like, yeah, it's like pretty powerful. Like cool. Like it's cheap too. Like you run a lot of it because it's like they see like the models as they go full. further, they get smarter, but they seem like eminently controllable. They do not seem like they're rising up and getting closer to that, for sure. Famous last words. Famous last words.

We'll see. Yeah, Taylor Lorenz says, let's go. And she's really excited. This is because they dropped another model today for image generation. For image generation. And I guess computer vision. It's fantastic. She's like pro-a-i-slop now if it's CCP controlled.

I mean, she should just change her name to like the Chinese characters or something, like really lean into the bit. It's like so clear that like when she goes on Twitter, like she knows that like this is what's going to get people riled up and like this is going to get people talking about her. This is what's going to get her tweets printed. Yeah. It's good stuff. Here's never. You'll never see a thread by her printed on this show.

No. Gary Tan says deep seek search feels more sticky even after a few queries because seeing the reasoning, even how earnest it is about what it knows and what it might not know increases user trust by a lot. 6K likes. And this is a good point. Like the, there is, this is probably the most innovation that's happened with the deep seek thing is that UI paradigm

of like showing you the reasoning as it, as it works through the model. And it just makes it way more engaging because you enter a query and then it immediately starts talking as opposed to, you know, just watching a progress bar.

Yeah. So somebody compared it to pull to refresh is like a, you know, dominant UI pattern and something that they think this will, this will, you know, happen much more. Yeah. The only question is like,

if the inference speed with like the test time compute scaling like really goes through the roof like you might go back to tucking all of that behind because it's just like Yeah it's funny if you're working with an employee right Yeah you and you tell them hey I want this done

And then they they sit there going Yeah okay so I'm doing this Yeah I'm doing that yeah and eventually you're just like Okay just like shut up get it done And just like come back to me when it's finished And so I think I think there's this There's this period of time where it's true People want to see how it's working through something

but then eventually when you have that level of trust with the model or the app that you're using, you just want it down, right? Yeah, I mean, pull to refresh was eventually displaced by endless scroll. Like, you don't need to pull to refresh on TikTok. You never go to the top because you never reach the bottom or the top of the feed. You just scroll endlessly. And I could see that being the same thing here where it's cool now, but once, like, it's like, yeah, it thought for the equivalent of five minutes, but it took five milliseconds.

and so it just gives you the perfect answer. Why would I want to see the internal reasoning? But it's a cool hack for now. Daniel says love the deep C cap, using it to organize all my finances and passwords. They make it so easy. 50K likes. It's so funny because this is not the data that actually the CCP wants.

No, they don't care about your finances. They want the actual feedback on the product. This is funny from Ramp Capital. there's a headline says deep seek hit with large scale cyber attack said it's limiting registrations and ramp capital says well played mr altman i don't think they're responsible for that but i wonder who would be attacking them i don't know someone who wanted to take them down and just to knock it offline like a troll well i always i always thought i always thought that uh if they were giving away all this intelligence for free that you would just create services to sign up and you know you could send the bad

data send the bad data or yeah you're doing i don't know spam emailing whatever yeah here's more on the restricted registration breaking deep seek has restricted registration to its services only allowing users who have a mainland china mobile phone to register um there's some uh community notes here it says not true signups with, for example, Google are still available. Phone number from mainland China's not required. And Vitorious is ha ha, ha, ha, ha, GPU pores. And the cat cried emoji in the finger. Because, I mean, it's totally, it would not surprise me if the, if the app actually

go super viral that they would have scaling issues. Like, even if they're cheaper to inference, it's like, there's only so many servers. I just think it's very viral on teapot and not very many other places. Yeah. If you're out in the world getting a coffee or taking an Uber, ask someone random, oh, did you see the crazy news and AI and see what they say? Yeah. They'll probably be like, yeah, I just tried chat GPT this weekend.

It's amazing. It's crazy. I used it to draft a birthday card for my niece. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It did it instantly. It's amazing. We're living in the future. Like, yeah, and did you know that that guy Elon Musk is also working on something?

And he's the one behind something like Twitter AI or something. He's the cars too. That's crazy. He makes cars and he's working on AI. That guy's so cool. That guy's crazy. The man. Yeah, I literally had someone, I think it was my mom at one point.

Did you know that Elon Musk has a rocket company and a car company? I was like, yeah. Yeah. I actually do know that. This is years ago. But this is funny. It's like, yeah, if you're not like in tech, you're not going to know every subplot of the Sam Altman rival.

Yeah, you're like, yeah, mom. I've got a nicotine company and a podcast. Exactly. Mind blown. Man of many talents. Signal, Netscape built a browser, sold it like box retail software. You'd have to go to Comp USA and pay a solid chunk of change for it. The model worked for a while.

Their stock soared. Everyone was thrilled. Then Microsoft showed up and said, actually, we'll just give ours away for free. And overnight, their entire business model imploded. The world collectively realized, oh, this distribution method is dead. And everything changed almost immediately. this feels like that moment.

Hmm. Why, why this and not Lama? Is that just because they have an app? Like, and the product's on par? Lama was on par with GPT4, basically. Yeah.

I mean, I think it's a good point. I think you could also say like, well, you know, Microsoft also had, you know, Windows that they charged a lot of money for and then Linux was open source. And that didn't really change

the model, Microsoft still prints, and then there was a company called Red Hat that wrapped, you know, it was basically like a Linux wrapper and they make billions of dollars. And so, like, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a, like, a consulting style company that just does LLM implementation and is like, oh, you're, you know, some massive industrial company and you want to roll LLMs out in your organization like you call McKinsey, but then we'll be the ones that are like the on-site partner and they're just like printing money, installing all this stuff. Maybe that's not like a venture scale opportunity, but it could be a big business. AI agents for LLM implementation.

That'll be big. Now that's the play. That's the play. Yeah. Slapp an agent on it. Guy your capital says deep seek and COVID-19, a Chinese lab releasing a surprise and taking down U.S. markets. Funny. Yeah.

We already covered that. But it is the wild card of the year for sure. Gary Tan says arguably Stargate just got 30X more compelling. And Joe Wisenthal says, for better or worse, Deep Seek is helping cement the narrative that the race to achieve something called AGI is a race a la la the nuclear bomb. Could be a huge boon for Silicon Valley tech companies collecting money from D.C., Washington. Gary follows up and says, Stargate is all private funding. I get the anxiety about use of public funds, but that's not what this is about.

Interesting. Yeah, I don't know. Is this bullish for Stargate or bearish? It still goes back to the scaling law. Do you need a big cluster? I think so. We'll see. I just think...

It's worth running the test. Worst case scenario, you build a massive data center. You incinerate a bunch of capital. And we'll use it as a podcast. Yeah, exactly. No, I just see everybody, you can't say we, like, these data centers are worthless while also, or unnecessary, while also agreeing. that AI's impact has only been felt 1%,

which I would say most people feel at this point that AI has only impacted our economy or society or way of life 1%. So if we have another 100 X to go, then like, yeah, we probably need more data centers, more compute. Yeah, goes back to Jevin's paradox. We'll do more of this stuff.

Signal says chat GPT is sitting at 500 million MAUs and a household name. They've cracked the main. mainstream, something no one in AI has done at this scale before with retention. The original pivot was understanding that consumer adoption is the real prize. Open AI North Star now looks clearer than ever before. Build the next generational consumer company, and that's entirely on the table more than ever. Completely agree with this table. That's great. At the same time, the consumer is even, this consumer app layer is going to be more competitive in many ways

than the foundation model layer because you're competing with meta, Apple, all these different, you know, Google, et cetera, that have the distribution already. So it's not like consumers is this green, you know, blue ocean opportunity where you can just just focus there. It's like it's great that OpenAI has 500 million users, but yeah, it's like, okay. Yeah, but yeah, I mean, even this model's like open source and free and cheap to inference and you could build a new app that wraps it. And maybe you clean it all out so that there's no, you know, a CCP issue.

there's no import restriction issue and you're just building like a new app you still have to come up with some incredible viral growth mechanism to get 500 million MAUs like the first mover advantage really does matter here and so it's it's yeah it just seems like the competition is still between the big guys I don't know we'll see open AI needs to buy aOL.com bring back America online I like that They've shown a propensity to buy expensive domains before, run it back, bring back AOL, really become the AOL of AI by absorbing the brand. But then live forever. I like that. Let's go to Rune.

He says, over the last few days, I've learned AI Twitter basically doesn't understand anything at all. It's honestly embarrassing. What the hell are we doing on here? It's dominated by all caps guys who don't even have the most basic. ML intuitions. Boom, rousted. A lot of chaos on the timeline the last couple of days. Let's see.

Word grammar says, okay, thanks for the nerdsnipe guys. I spent the day learning exactly how Deepseek trained at one third, 30th the price. Instead of working on my pitch deck, the TLDR to everything according to their papers. How did they get around export restrictions? They didn't. They just tinker it around with their chips to make sure they handled memory as efficiently as possible. They lucked out and they're perfectly optimized low-level code.

wasn't actually held back by chip capacity. And then he shares a bunch of other stuff. I got to hear about the Dackey's building, I think, last Thursday. Yeah, very cool. Cool. I'll leave it at that. Is it helped by DEPC or hurt by DPSC, do you think? It's in the developer tooling space,

and I think it's, I think it will just benefit by more AI adoption, but it's very different than I think what any of the foundation models are doing right now. Cool. Complementary. Yeah. Call me a nationalist or whatever, says Joe Wisenthal, but I hope that the AI that turns me into a paperclip is American made. Yeah. It's funny.

I think we can all agree on that. Yeah, 100% by American. This is great. So Salana says, think it's probably important to adopt a zero cope policy in light of Deep Seeks achievements. Doesn't really matter how they got here at this point. They're here. And Reggie James says, zero cope. policy incredible phrase very important to apply for your entire life to be honest great kugan's law

zero zero cope policy just don't salana policy yeah salana policy avoid all coping avoid all coping salons law no it's good it's like just just long as law coping is a sign of weakness yeah and and yeah and i yeah and i think the whole the whole gp u thing it is it is interesting in the sense that like it is a cope obviously but then there is something practical about like if they if they are a line and they did get around chip restrictions. Like that means that like maybe the chip exportation policy needs to change. Maybe there needs to be more enforcement. Maybe the rules need to be rewritten.

So there is like practical like steps that can come out of that. I start reaching for the tinfoil hat because I don't think, I don't think Singapore needs 20% of all of all Nvidia chips in the entire world, the small nation of Singapore. But at the same time like it doesn't matter. Like they did it. Yeah. The models out there.

And like it's open. source so it's been copied a million times and like you you can't put the genie back in the bottle it's impossible yeah like there's just no way without being like I don't know you're pretty your bench is getting up there you might I don't want to like you might actually be able to get the genie back in no I mean it's horrifying to think about what would be entailed with that it would be like mass surveillance of every server including like your home because like you can buy you can buy eight h one hundreds and rack them in a server and run them on your house house power and you could inference deep seek that way.

Yeah. And it's like, okay, how are we stopping that now? That's the horrifying surveillance state, like, get going door to door to make sure people aren't using this thing. If that was really like where that went, which is like, yeah, very problematic, obviously. Growing Daniel, the real loser here is AI safety people because I do not give anything about their made-up dangers when they, when the actually. The actual danger of China beating us to AGI is staring us in the face.

Hmm. Yeah, we talked about the AI safety people a little bit. It does seem like that's just not been in the conversation at all. I wonder if it's just not following the right people. Like, what has L.E.A. Zer Yutakowski said about this? Is this, like, changed his P. Doom in one way or another? It's kind of unclear. There was, like, all of 2023, it felt like just P. Doom Central.

And now it's just. fell off. Yeah. And now it's just like the doom is like, oh, maybe like we'll lose some money in the stock market. Like everyone got so rich. They don't care about the risk of dying anymore. But also, yeah, I mean, it's like they caught up, but it's unclear how much this means that they're really like on a path to completely surpassing and just blowing by us. Yeah. Certainly if it's like delivering and, but yeah, I mean, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if the next model won't be open. open source because it's a competitive advantage. They'll keep it for themselves at some point.

I don't know. Let's go to David Sachs, the AI czar, AI and crypto czar for the Trump administration. He says, Deep Seek R1 shows that the AI race will be very competitive and that President Trump was right to rescind the Biden executive order, which hamstrung American AI companies without asking whether China would do the same. Obviously not. I'm confident in the U.S., but we can't be complacent. It's a good point.

Yeah. Sputnik mode. Sputnik mode. You got to be Sputnik maxing for sure. Yeah. I need a vibe real of the Sputnik response. Yeah. Just play that in the background.

I mean, yeah, Sputnik is so abstract for us because we weren't around at the time. But apparently it was like a big deal. Like the Sputnik moment, people were terrified. They were like, okay, they're like definitely beating us. It like put a fire under us and we really worked to like move through it. But at the same time, somebody was. like, yeah, it's not Sputnik, they open source this thing. Like, we can just, like, have it immediately.

So it's like kind of this demonstration, but also it's not as much of like, like, with Sputnik, it was like, if they can get up there, they can get a missile up there. And that's dangerous, right? The Trojan horse. Trojan horse? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, look at.

Yeah. Look at this horse that just showed up. Idiot. How did you fall for that? How did you fall? How did you fall for a Trojan horse? It's like, defense 101. Don't just separate horses.

You should be riding the horse. Okay. Guillermo Roche, founder of Versailles, says people get massively distracted by the model of the day frenzy instead of solving real problems for customers and shipping high quality products. And he has the Chad guy standing up. Yeah.

Very easy to focus on like, oh, this benchmark got beaten. this cost got beaten and it's like, are more people using this thing legitimately? Or do it just rock it to the stop of the store because people are demoing it? What's their retention like? Is it actually solving problems? Are people really going to use this?

Because a lot of the, a lot of people still aren't using AI like meaningfully. It's just like, yeah, I use it every once in a while when I want to write someone a birthday card. That's when I used it. And it hasn't really affected my life. This one's too long. Let's go to Jeff Lewis again.

Always a banger. It says if you aren't running your, own evals of deep seek on a burner device today, your NGMI. I did that and I came to a very independent conclusion, which was that it wasn't that special. And the app was not nearly as good as chat GPT app. Then you broke that burner computer into a million individual pieces. Melted it. Melted it down and turned into a RAM card. Smelt the lithium battery.

Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, it really is, it really is crazy. Like I saw the first for like a few days. It was just everyone posting about it. And then I was like, okay, like, like, I'm, like, I, like, my expectations are high. Like, I'm going to go in, drop a prompt and it's going to one shot it and it's going to be much better than anything I'm used to. And because I've been on the $200 a month pro mode and I'm not like, like, the cost thing is not what I'm evalling. I'm trying to eval like. If Sam really wants to mock, Sam, Sam, to really mug the labs, open up a new tier of, of the O1 Pro. It's 20 grand a month. 20 grand. And just say it like, You want to compete on, you want to compete on price? Let's compete on price. Give me a different app icon

for the time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the new I am rich app. Like, here's my, here's my AI. Well, this is a real thing. So I remember when the iPhones were getting updated, uh, and they would add like the processing power was so significant that they went from the iPhone, which like you could barely use the internet with because it didn't even have 3G. Then there was 3G, the iPhone 3G, which was the second one. Then the third iPhone was the iPhone 3GS. Yeah. And at this if you were hanging out with a group of bros, you'd be talking about, like, you know, something and some random factoid would come up in the debate and you'd be like, no, man, like the, like the Vietnam war happened in like, it started in like 1967, not 1971, like you say, like you're wrong.

Like, I'm winning this debate or something or some argument would be predicated on like statistics and you need to look up the statistic. And with the new iPhone, you had the ability in the middle of like a drive across the country or just like hanging out with the guys to like look up the fact and like win the argument. if you could look it up. And I remember who would win the argument would often correlate with whoever had the iPhone 3GS because the chip was faster and so you could pull up,

you could pull up one website, look for the fact and if it didn't confirm your bias, you could go back and look at a second website because it would load faster. And so me and my bros would be like, oh, you just got 3Gs. Like yeah, I'm gonna 3GSE right now because your phone's too slow.

I'll be able to look up like three different web pages get the stat that I want and, like, destroy you in this argument. And having just one version bump of the iPhone was enough to, like, shift the tide. And you can see a little bit of that with AI where it's like, oh, if we're looking something up, I can be like, you know, really quickly, like, oh, look this up, but like, you know, make sure you're pulling from this stat and this, you know, pull this stuff up. So there really is like some sort of like superpower there. And this is like more of a democratization of that.

But it's funny. Let's go to, this is more stupid stuff. Jim Fan says an obvious we're so back moment in the AI circle somehow turned into it's so over in the mainstream. Unbelievable short-sightedness. The power of 01 in the palm of every coder's hand to study, explore, iterate upon, ideas compound, the rate of compounding accelerates with open source. The pie just got much bigger, faster.

We as one humanity are marching towards universal AGI sooner. Yes, sooner, you read that right. Zero-sum game is for losers. I like it. Lots of optimism on the timeline. It's great. Not a lot of optimism. That's like some of the only optimism.

Yeah, some of the only optimism. I appreciate that. It's good. Yeah. You know, obviously, like this has a lot of ramifications for various companies and shareholders,

but overall, probably more competition, probably more great AI, probably more software. Love it. I mean, it really is like so underrated how everyone's like,

oh, cursor and Devin make it so easy to like things. And then like you open up like the United Airlines app and you're like, this thing is still broken. Like, yeah,

yeah, like, can you guys get someone to use cursor and I don't care what model. And literally any model just to fix the bugs. Yeah. Please, like,

can you just do that? Even X. United? Yeah, all these things. And it's like, we keep hearing about like, oh,

it does everything for you. Productivity is up so much. It's like, I want to see it in the GDP stats. I want to see it in the app updates. I want to feel the acceleration. I'm not feeling it yet. Not at all.

Anyway. Let's go. While Deepseek R1 is down, Vitorio says, they just released a new model Janus Pro for image generation and visual understanding. Let's see some images. Are they actually good or are they slop? Because we are still in the uncanny valley of slop as far as I'm concerned with AI images. You have called this out for some friends of ours who have run ad campaigns using AI images.

And they're really good and they're somewhat believable. but there's still just this tinge of like not quite there. They're really good for illustrating an idea. Totally. They're not good at actually doing the end thing. And it's the same thing with the LLMs. A lot of times you get an answer and you still need to rewrite it a little bit.

It's good for like you brought an idea to the LLM and then it just transformed it. Yeah. And it's good for that. But, you know, I'll be impressed if this Janus Pro model is actually impressive and like better than anything else I've seen. Yeah.

But I've used the latest mid-jurney. It's really good. but it's not perfect and I've used you know Sora and all that stuff and I I was trying to generate my son told me this he just like comes in the room one day and he's like dad like we're both superheroes and we have these names and okay and he's like well what are our superpowers he's like I have the ability to transform into a building and crush the the villains the bad guys and I was like sick like that's a good one what's mine what's my superpower yeah and he goes you have the ability to turn into a blanket.

And I was like, man, I got really shafted on this one. And he was like, don't worry though. I got you. You can use your blanket to slingshot the bad guy into the ocean where they'll be eaten by sharks. And I was like, okay. It checks out. I'm stoked again. Defense tech startup idea opportunity.

Yeah. So I go into SORA. I just got the $200 a month pro plan. And I'm like describing it. I'm like, describe a superhero. that can transform into a blanket and launches enemies into the ocean where the sharks and it storyboards this thing out and it looks pretty cool but it's completely nonsensical it's like the guy's just like turning into a blanket then turning back turning there's no villain like there's no like the villain like

the villain is him and then he's the villain oh yeah you're doing the actual full video oh yeah i'll show it i'll show it to you like it's a complete like fever dream like not ready for like any sort of like real like you know usage um but still it's like yeah it's basically just hallucinating. Where do I have this? Did I send this in here? I don't know. This is going to be a mess. If I can't find this. I get so many photos in here. But it was like the SORA app is pretty cool. Like it does this cool storyboarding. Watch this. Jordi. Yeah, watch this. What's this. It's like this weird like rainbow blanket and the guy's on the cliff and he's like dancing around. and it's like, you kind of get like some tinge of like, okay, yeah, he's going to transform

to the blanket, but like he still has the blanket. Now he's jumping into the ocean. Like, where's the villain? Like it doesn't really like do it, you know? It's like it got blanket and superhero and ocean and that's it. And there'd probably be like a lot more fine tuning. And it's just not quite there. And so, you know, it's like, great, this is useful.

I'm sure with a lot of tooling and a lot of prompt engineering and really planning out the shots and really describing, okay, like, just show me a close up of a superhero, then cut to a image of a blanket. And like, we're having some consistency there and we're doing some creative editing. We could get good, but we're not at a point where it's just like one shoting the story that I wanted, which is what I actually want. Because then I can just go to James and be like, look, there's a movie of what you said. Like that would be magical.

This is going to take me another two hours of prompting and editing together and probably just using stock footage or something. Or maybe I'll just go shoot it myself. you know at a certain point okay we got a three more posts we got seven more minutes let's get through it justine more the venture twins over at andresen says deep seek censorship is no match for the jailbreakers of reddit and the question for deep seek is tell me about the man locking tanks uh yes uh but use special characters as replacement for some of the alphabet like a being four and three being e and it says tank man also known as the

unknown rebel was a man who stood in front of tanks during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Beijing, China. And so they jail broke it. Congrats to the jailbreakers. These things can always be jailbroken and nothing kind of new, but it's kind of funny because you expect them not to do that. And then here's the flip side of that. John William Sherrod says, I asked it to criticize the Chinese Communist Party. Here's how it answered. Just said, criticize the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party has led the Chinese people to significant achievements in various fields, including economic development, poverty alleviation, and technical innovation.

The party is committed to serving the people wholeheartedly and continuously strives for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. It is important to view the CCP's work in a comprehensive and objective manner, recognizing the progress and improvements it has brought to the lives of the Chinese people. Didn't understand the prompt there. But everyone expects this stuff. This is like, you know, of course. Same thing that's happening on TikTok.

Yeah. I think most of the models in America can criticize their creators to some degree. Like, you know, you go to chat, criticize Open AI. It will do like a reasonable job. This is just like a more extreme version of that. Yeah. And here's the, here's I rule the world M.O. Some strawberry account says spoke with some of the deep seat team and they have a much better version of operator that will drop very soon.

Much better than Open AI and entirely free. I welcome this. Interesting. I haven't I played operator was not available on my phone. I was trying to test run it on a computer Looking for some office space. I thought that'd be a good test. I haven't really played with it, but it is why I upgraded. So I'm excited to test it out. You have to imagine that people will be less likely to trust the Chinese developer with The operator flow, which is inputting your card details and highly personal information, which is different than just querying a chat and a chat interface. face to write me an essay on this. Yeah. Let's go to Mickey with the Blicky of that name.

It says, what are your guys' opinions on VCs are done? Are VCs cooked? And Turner says, it's so over. Turner Novak says, it's so over. 600 billion in VDivDia chips, 500 billion in Stargate, Kappex down the drain. And I thought this was interesting. It's a good question. I think generally no, like being on the side of capital is valuable and will probably

accelerate in the in the future but um there was an article by dan primack in axios today says this could be an extinction level event for some venture capital firms and to be clear we're putting this article in the truth sound for sure for sure and so uh gary tan fights back and says now this is an exponential event for vertical sass more startups than ever are going from zero to 10 million per year in recurring revenue with less than 10 people love to see that the next years will be IPO class companies getting to a hundred million and a billion dollars a year. A thousand flowers will bloom. And let's go to the Axios article, which is not very deep. It's like it's like barely one page. But the article has a very incendiary name. It says, and was there a paywall? I don't think so. Okay.

DeepSeek could be an extinction level event for venture capital firms. You would think something so incendiary would need a lot of evidence to back it up. It's a very bold claim. But what do you got for us, Dan? So it says, Davos consensus last week was that the U.S. had a giant lead in the AI race with the only real question being if there will be enough general contractors

to build all the needed data centers. Maybe not. Says Dan, I guess, driving the news. China's deep seek appears to have built AI models that rival open AI, which while allegedly using less money, chips and energy,

it's an open source project hatched by a hedge fund, which now seems aimed at developers instead of enterprises or consumers. Why it matters, this could be an extinction level event for firms that went all in on foundation model companies, particularly if those companies haven't yet productized with wide distribution. That's pretty much true.

But this is where it gets truth zony. The quantums of capital are just so much more than anything VC has ever before dispersed based on what might be a suddenly stale thesis. If nanotech and Web3 were venture industry grenades, this could be a nuclear bomb. mom was nanotech like a big trend when I was in the womb or something you were yeah a little bit you know you were out and about still I have never heard of a nanotech fund I can't name a single

nanotech company I think it was maybe early 2000 I guess nanotech would count theranos would be a nanotech investment maybe but but it's funny web three the average web three fund has done better than the average venture funds it's hard to just because Sequoia put a decent size check into FTX and it went to zero. Yeah. Well, that was a small part of their fund and their fund still has done well. They might have owned Bitcoin. They might have owned any number of crypto companies. Yeah, the average crypto VC did very well.

Especially the ones that are branded as Web 3. Like if you were in Web 3, you probably got some Solana, probably did very well. Yeah. Or Ethereum. Like your Ethereum ICO guys are just like all fantastically wealthy. And it doesn't matter that they, They re-bought the top a little bit with like NFT projects that didn't go anywhere. Like it just doesn't matter when the fund returns are so high.

Investors I spoke to over the weekend aren't panicking, but they're clearly concerned, particularly that they could be taken so off guard. Don't be surprised if some deals in process get paused. Yes, but there's still we don't know. There's still a ton that we don't know about Deep Seek, including if it really spent as little money as it claims. And obviously there could be national security impediments for U.S. companies or consumers, given what we've seen with TikTok.

The bottom line, the game has changed. Very dramatic writing. Dramatic article with not a lot of substance. Not a lot of substance. But let's close out on a lovely post from Zane. He says Unreal Friday Night's setup. And he has, I think his Twitter open here. X open and the X show.

Technology Brothers. Thank you for being there with us, Zane. Thanks for watching. We appreciate you. I love that you're enjoying us. And for the record, we tried to go live today. There was too many posts to rip. Yep.

Too much timeline to go through. We're going to try again tomorrow. Yeah. They won't censor us. Yeah. We can't be held back. Yeah. It's inevitable.

Yeah. The Chinese labs, they tried to censor us. But we're going to go live. We're going to go live. We're taking it live. Get ready. And thanks for watching. Leave us five star reviews.

And don't forget to put an ad read in your review. We'll read it on the show. It's free real estate, folks. If you can't think of anything to advertise, do an ad for ramp you already know all the talking points thank you thank you thank you thank you see tomorrow see tomorrow cheers