It seems like the usual Wall Street consensus on NVIDIA got completely blindsided by... a blogger in Brooklyn and a Chinese AI company. Jeffrey Emanuel, working from his apartment, wrote a blog post questioning NVIDIA's valuation, and it *might* have actually contributed to a $600 billion drop in their market cap!

You have to admire the sheer audacity of it. Here's this guy, who used to be on Wall Street but now runs a side project transcribing YouTube videos, and he manages to see something that apparently like 61 out of 67 analysts with "buy" ratings on Nvidia completely missed. The article even mentions that these analysts often rely on "industry experts" – which, as Emanuel says, is "like asking the barber if you need a haircut."

And then there's DeepSeek, another little guy bringing NVIDIA's value down also. Two little guys taking on big guys.

The article even hints at a slightly wild theory: that NVIDIA employees in San Jose might have been reading Emanuel's blog and thinking, "Hmm, maybe he's onto something..." and started selling their stock options. Whether that's true or not, the idea of a blog post potentially influencing market behavor like that is pretty fascinating in itself.

Interesting (and not entirely surprising) data leak from DeepSeek. Between this and the inherent risk of any Chinese company having its data accessible by the CCP, it really highlights the need for users to take control of their AI interactions.

The good news is, DeepSeek can be run on your own hardware. For those concerned about data privacy and security (and frankly, who isn't?), running DeepSeek locally is a very viable option. The instructions aren't even that daunting, check out https://unsloth.ai/blog/deepseekr1-dynamic.

"Wrong side of history," Altman says, after locking down his AI garden and charging rent. Suddenly open source looks good when someone else is eating your lunch. Cry me a river, Sam. By making their model open source and free, DeepSeek out-"OpenAI-ed" Altman.

The rest of the world isn't shedding tears for OpenAI's lost lead. In fact, a lot of people are probably popping champagne corks. There's a global appetite to see the US tech giants humbled, and DeepSeek is serving up a delicious dish of comeuppance. Enjoy the taste of your own medicine, OpenAI.

And all those chip restrictions? Turns out constraints are a fantastic motivator. While the US is busy patting itself on the back for its tech dominance, China's been busy innovating around the obstacles. Maybe having everything handed to you on a silver platter isn't the recipe for long-term innovation after all. Who knew? I think China just moved from 12-18 months behind the US in AI technology to 3-6 months behind.

Oh, Silicon Valley panicked over $5.6 Million? Bless their hearts. That's like finding a twenty in your couch cushions and declaring yourself a billionaire.

DeepSeek's "miracle" is less miracle, more marketing. That $5.6M figure probably covers the electricity bill for the final training run, assuming they weren't running it on hamsters in wheels. It conveniently forgets the small detail of the billion yuan supercomputer they built before the export bans. You know, the one with the 10,000 A100s. Just a minor detail.

And their data? Let's just say if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, OpenAI should be blushing. Remember DeepSeek R1's brief identity crisis as ChatGPT4? Classy. Distillation is a thing, folks, and public datasets are...public. Let's not pretend DeepSeek invented AI from scratch on a shoestring budget.

The real lesson here? Markets are easily manipulated by shiny numbers and breathless headlines. DeepSeek played the game brilliantly. But the idea that they built a ChatGPT-level model for the price of a used Tesla is pure fantasy. The true cost is hidden in the infrastructure, the R&D, and the likely "inspiration" they drew from others. But hey, $5.6M makes for a better headline, right? Pass the popcorn.

Thanks for this post, it's a breath of fresh air.

I see a growing divide between the right and the left with more and more divisiveness every year--and this toxic hatred from both sides is disheartening.

Where is my ignorance? Where do the laws of logic come from if not from God?

Haha my well-thought out post was modded a troll. And then I'm accused of copying this from somewhere else by BOTH responses to it, although no one actually found an original.

But hey, mod the responder a +4 even though they never actually dealt with my arguments.

The slashdot gestapo in full effect.

No need to respond to the arguments, just mod me a troll and move on quickly so you can engage in some more anti-theistic groupthink. I must have struck a nerve if no one can actually respond logically. :)

That is utterly moronic. You just stated (or copied, more like - I doubt you are even capable of thinking for yourself...)

I assure you I didn't copy it from anywhere. I typed it myself. Yessir, I'mma dumb Christian, but ahsa can think fer misself.

a bunch of made up assumptions (just because they are in bold doesn't make them true) and then used those made up assumptions to justify themselves. Wow, a pillar of logic you are.

And to think you didn't even interact or even try to justify where logic, morality, dignity, and uniformity of nature come from. You seemed to have conceded my points to me and then attacked me as a person. Ad hominem, when used, shows how utterly pathetic your argument is.

Well I claim humans created religion. So from my single assumption, I can logically state that the very act of being human thus allows all of the things you claim don't exist if humans created religion.

So where do you get logic from then? You've ignored every one of my arguments, so, let's try this again. I'll even make it easier for you.

Where does logic come from? How can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

(Full disclosure: I copied that paragraph from my earlier post--because you didn't respond to it. I hope by copying my earlier paragraph that I have not made the questions invalid)

Try again now. Try to tell me where logic comes from based on your worldview. If you can account for it, then you are free to rely on the laws of logic. However, if you can't justify the use of logic, why do you insist that anyone behaves logically?

Atheists don't believe that religion doesn't exist - they just don't believe god has to exist for humans to create a religion.

Nice straw man. Now let's get philosophically tough minded and actually address the issues I brought up.

Where did I copy it from?

Nice baseless accusation.

So says you.

One who subscribes to a set of presuppositions, however, believes in them because she accepts them as her starting point. Your presuppositions--your axioms--are your basis by which you interpret the world around you.

One must have faith in his presuppositions, because they are accepted without proof. Atheism is one of those beliefs that one must subscribe to without being able to prove it. The problem with assuming atheism as an axiom is that it does not comport with reality.

Atheism does not allow for uniformity of nature--how can one assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (in an atheistic worldview)? Because it rose yesterday? That only proves that it rose in our experience so far, but it doesn't prove it will rise again.

Atheism does not allow for laws of logic--how can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?

Atheism does not allow for human dignity--the idea that humans have more dignity than say broccoli. Why is it permissible for the atheist to eat broccoli but not eat babies? Who says either one is any more valuable than the other?

Atheism does not allow for right or wrong. How can an atheist point to anyone else and say that they should stop doing it? A common response is that society adopts laws that determine the morality of the land. Okay, so might makes right? What would one say to the Germans of World War 2? It was legal to gas millions of Jews, so how can an atheist make a claim that their moral code is superior to anyone else's?

Theism (or more specifically, Christian Theism) is a presupposition that, when accepted, allows for and comports with uniformity of nature, laws of logic, human dignity, and right or wrong. The atheist that relies on those four things borrows from the Christian Theistic Worldview only to claim that the Christian God doesn't exist.

And yet, in doing so, they become their own refutation.

Actually she never said that. Tina Fay said that.

Evolution of the "I Can See Alaska From My House" statement

Now go back to reading the Internet, which Al Gore invented. (sarcasm)

BRIAN:
        I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate FORTRAN as much as anybody.
Objective C:
        Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG:
        Schtum.
JUDITH:
        Are you sure?
BRIAN:
        Oh, dead sure. I hate FORTRAN already.
REG:
        Listen. If you really wanted to join Objective C, you'd have to really hate FORTRAN.
BRIAN:
        I do!
REG:
        Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN:
        A lot!
REG:
        Right. You're in. Listen. The only language we hate more than FORTRAN is fucking C Objective.

You don't understand transcendental argumentation.

You do understand ad hominem.

Nice retreat, though. :)

I noticed you dodged the logic question again. If you can't give an account for why you use and rely upon logic, I can't help but conclude that you have no answer and you concede the argument to me.

So let's recap. I've presented a worldview inside which logic makes sense. I gave a reason why I can rely upon and use laws of logic, and trust the results of them.

I've stated that I have yet to find a worldview inside which logic makes sense apart from the Christian Theistic Worldview (CTW). This is where you should present a worldview that comports with the laws of logic. If not, you are reasoning inconsistently. You are relying upon the benefits of the Christian Theistic Worldview while at the same time attacking it.

It's intellectual schizophrenia.

So, please stop trying to beg the question--why are you using logic? Is it consistent to rely upon laws of logic given an atheistic worldview? Do laws, being immaterial and universal, exist within your worldview?

I thought your argument was humorous, but it was very flawed. Try being rational and consistent within your worldview. It's fun!

How is knowledge possible given your view of the universe?

Why do you act as if you do know something with certainty? How would you go about proving the statement "It is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty."?

You've demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy that results when one rejects the Christian God.

Knowledge is impossible, rationality is impossible, and Science is nothing but educated guesses.

This doesn't comport with reality, nor with human experience.