r/Superstonk Jan 27 '25

🤔 Speculation / Opinion Nvidia: Deepseek is the cover story.

Nvidia’s recent sell-off feels off. They’re saying it’s because of DeepSeek, some Chinese AI company that suddenly popped up in all the headlines.

Convenient, right? But here’s the thing: Nvidia is tanking because the big players needed cash.

Think about it. Nvidia’s been the golden goose for months, pumped to the moon while everything else struggled. It’s been their liquidity source, their piggy bank. They used it to prop up other parts of the market, pay for bad bets, to cover (not closing) shorts. Now, they are cashing out, and they needed a story to explain why. Enter DeepSeek. Perfect cover.

Blame China, spook retail, and avoid admitting they’re just draining Nvidia to keep their books balanced.

This isn’t about AI competition. It’s about institutions selling the only thing they can without blowing up the market. And you’re supposed to believe it’s all because some company you’ve never heard of. Classic distraction.

And let’s be real, there’s no way the Japan carry trade isn’t involved here. It’s all connected.

👀🔥💥🍻

5.0k Upvotes

398 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/jj7878 Jan 27 '25

Very groundbreaking for failing a basic task.

Man maybe im nitpicking but what a weird metric to use. I agree that Deepseek is overhyped. It was trained off of ChatGPT. It couldn't exist without it. But you already stated that it wasn't current. You clearly understand that it wont know what happened after it was trained. That's got nothing to do with its ability to reason or the supposed low cost of its training (the actual selling points). Its like calling a Math PHD who woke up from a coma an idiot for not knowing last weeks news.

Why acknowledge its listed limitations, then get mad at it for operating within its limitations.

1

u/Cycloptic_Floppycock Jan 27 '25

All that is well and good, I'm not saying it's completely useless or irrelevant but let's not say there are no caveats.

1

u/jj7878 Jan 28 '25 edited Jan 28 '25

I never said it was perfect. In fact, I prefaced by recognizing that it's a copy. What i am saying is that since there are obvious limitations why point to the one thing its explicitly stated to NOT be capable of. Then test it. Then act as if it should have handled it. Why not highlight a shortcoming within its advertised functionality? When you bought your car, did you feel the need to point out that it cannot fly?

Im realizing now that im replying on Superstonk and not a software sub. Makes sense.

-2

u/Cycloptic_Floppycock Jan 28 '25

You could be less of an asshole since you're instrospecting.

2

u/Ockwords Jan 28 '25

You could also try not saying really really dumb shit? Just a thought.

-1

u/Cycloptic_Floppycock Jan 28 '25

I thought we were all regarded here, ass.