DeepSeek just proved Lina Khan right
DeepSeek just proved Lina Khan right
Khan warned that enabling protectionism for tech monopolies wouldn’t just hurt all of us, it would hurt them too. Now they’re getting wiped out.
I'll be honest, I'm just hoping this AI shit calms down. Every 5-6 new papers published in the Journal of Computer Science is some AI slop. Like we get it, it's fun filling a big ass matrix with weights which then inadvertently solve a problem you have. Could I please have some novel research that probably won't go anywhere anytime soon but is kind of fun to think about and tinker with?
AI is the new blockchain
You can always get into 3d printing.
Man, the hysterical, unhinged US market just has no chill.
Someone came up with a better chatbot-- "OMG, superintelligence is here and is inevitable, all hail our robot overlords and their broligarch creators!"
Somebody outside the US had an idea to train a chatbot for cheaper-- "OMG, US tech is doomed, they have no recourse against this and all the hardware is now worthless!"
Maybe if the markets weren't constantly freaking the hell out about any semblance of technological innovation in search for the next Google or Apple they woldn't have to deflate like a balloon each time reality sets in.
Their unhinged need for growth/metastasis to to feed their ego scores is unquenchable and ending the world.
It's tragic we won't physically stop them via revolution. We are cowards that mistake this quiet slaughter for peace. The planet will have to do it for us, and take us and a lot of innocent surface life with them.
You... may not have been following the news for the past couple of years.
Doesn't quite look like "quiet death mistaken for peace" out there, and it seems like the world destroying is very much being done with guns, as per usual.
Endless capitalist growth and wealth accumulation is still bad, though, don't get me wrong, and oligarchy is, as always, tied to all the rest of it. That's just a bit of a reductionist take.
The market's chronic convulsive disorder is, imo, an inefficient pricing problem. Price discovery doesn't really exist, most of the trading volume is "off-exchange" and market makers have severe unchecked moral hazards in how they do business.
The underlying value of publicly traded companies simply does not change as fast as this. Regardless of what you might say about the speed at which the market reacts to new information. In a world where the media openly and solely serves the interests of billionaires and a small outfit like Wall Street On Parade is routinely censored on socials, there's no reason to believe anything you're ever told by the news about any moves in the market.
The "underlying value" isn't much of a concern if you're someone seeking funding or a small investor. It's also not much of a concern if the "unchecked moral hazards" are still funneling money towards a small group of capitalists. Or if the political ramifications of the reporting are impactful in other areas.
It's not a media conspiracy if all the real world consequences are based on the same consensual reality. "It's all fake reporting anyway" is not a valid response here, even without disputing the base assumptions, which I probably would.
it's a shame the US will likely not see another lina khan in the foreseeable future.
We didn't deserve her, but I am honored and grateful to have had her working for my interests. What she was or wasn't able to accomplish wasn't for lack of trying.
The social contract struck between the U.S. government and Silicon Valley—which the American people became an involuntary party to—was straightforward: We will let a handful of tech bros become unfathomably wealthy and in exchange they will build a tech industry that keeps America globally dominant. Instead, the tech bros broke the bargain. They took the money, but instead of continuing to innovate and compete, built monopolies to keep out competition—even getting the help of the U.S. national security state to block Chinese access to our tech. But they couldn’t keep out of the competition forever. Lina Khan was right. And now here we are.
Regardless how this plays out that was a very satisfying article to read and the quoted section above is a big part of that.
also I haven't made any investment of my time or money into A.I. so my personal smug-o-meter needle is buried high-side right now.
Wow, we could have been talking about Jacquard mills and running essentially the same narrative.
Im glad DeepSeek open sourced their model. Even if the goal was to destabilize US companies, I think it's a blessing the tools can go to anyone with a "powerful enough" computer.
And to be really honest, I don't like what the tech companies have done with AI in such a short amount of time. I'm glad they are getting the piss beaten out of them. All these AI companies will do whatever it takes to destroy human labor pools so they can absorb a fraction of our wages.
The sad part is, they are after a fraction of a wage that is already undervalued. We are all struggling because of corporate greed anyway.
And if China increasingly becomes the place to go work if you’re an ambitious researcher or developer, it’s not hard to see where that leads.
Is that a thing? I know China's research sector is large and growing, but I never heard of it attracting foreigners.
“The accusations/obsessions over DeepSeek using H100 sound like a rich kids team got outplayed by a poor kids team, who weren't even allowed shoes,” tweeted Jen Zhu, an AI investor, “and now the rich kids are demanding an investigation into whether shoes were used instead of training harder to improve themselves.”
This is amazing.
Is that a thing? I know China’s research sector is large and growing, but I never heard of it attracting foreigners.
They offer very competitive salaries, if I knew Chinese and was 10-15 years younger I would have considered it.
It is very much not a thing. At least not for American tech workers.
The US is 4% of the world's population.
Fuck the big tech companies and all, but I don’t buy the argument that there is no competition in the US. If you believe that, you’re not paying attention to the space. There are a fuckload of weird models being developed in the US. Some by big players, and some by smaller companies.
IMHO, this is the same thing that happens with every new big advancement. PCs, internet, mobile, etc. People invest a shit load of money in the early players, then a ton of those early investments don’t pan out.
And often times, the people that really stand out are the smaller disrupters or the companies that come in a little later.
Exactly, the AI scene is more competitive than any other tech sector ever has been in the entire history of tech.
The "article" is kinda low-effort bait and shouldn't even be here.
It sometimes happens like that. And sometimes a big player will emerge early in the proceedings and stay on top for an extended period: General Motors, Boeing, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Google. Sometimes there's even a bit of innovation before they settle into stealing all the sunlight from the smaller trees.
New soyjack unlocked?
Those poor little hothouse flowers.
Capitalism can't innovate.
*Late stage capitalism can't innovate. The industrial revolution and internet revolution, among others, were fueled by Western capitalists. Adopting capitalism early on is about 75% of the reason the West is at the top of the modern world order.
Protectionism [and Galapagosization] killed the Japanese smartphone industry.
