5 ms·

With deepseek and xiaomi mimo models slashing their prices 99%, I don't see a great future for openai / antrhopic with regards to their 1T valuations. Maybe 1T

With deepseek and xiaomi mimo models slashing their prices 99%, I don't see a great future for openai / antrhopic with regards to their 1T valuations. Maybe 1T valuation will be the whole market, West + East.

skeledrew 4mo ago
They'll still have their dedicated enterprise customers. I think the Chinese providers will pull more of the single users who're paying their own way, than those backed by company budget. And it's a pretty good split as the demand becomes better distributed, resulting in better service (I'll never forgot must how bad access to Claude became until they got access to Colossus) and less potential for lock-in (we really don't want there to be a duopoly, etc on good AI).
jillesvangurp 4mo ago
Most of the corporate world in the EU or North America will be hesitant to rely on Chinese AI providers. There are some very real blockers for that for things like data security, compliance, etc. And recent geopolitics don't help. Legalities aside, you need to look not at the model quality but at the infrastructure needed to scale these models from tens (now) to hundreds (soon) of millions of users. Only a handful of companies actually have the resources and funding to do that. That's what these huge valuations are based on. These companies are gearing up to scale to these levels. That's why they are spending on data centers. Whoever has access to those data centers gets to tap into the revenue stream of people using models running on those. The market for frontier models is roughly split between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. And then you have companies like X/SpaceX, Amazon, and Microsoft being more successful with their infrastructure than their AI products and companies like Apple, Meta that have the money and the aspiration but are so far not really managing to be very successful with their AI strategies. Deepseek is just very poorly positioned to capture a lot of the enterprise revenue in the EU or North America. But they might become very dominant outside the US/EU. And of course China itself is going to be a huge market and equally unlikely to want to be depending on US owner AI companies.
- sourcecodeplz 4mo ago
  Deepseek and all the other Chinese models have open-weights. You can host them yourself, no need to send data to China or rely on them.
  - tredre3 4mo ago
    There is still a risk of supply-chain attack. People give LLMs direct access to their entire infrastructure via tools, and never check the code produced. It's not difficult to steer an LLM during training so that they'd output malware only when prompted a certain way, and that wouldn't come up during the initial evaluation. Personally I see no difference between China and America in terms of risks of them embedding "backdoors" so to speak, but I disagree when people claim that open-weight models are obviously safe just because they can be ran locally.
    - skeledrew 4mo ago
      > It's not difficult to steer an LLM during training so that they'd output malware only when prompted a certain way Perhaps, but that's also a good way to lose users+reputation as there's no way to control when said malware is generated. Once the first instance is discovered cybersec researchers will have a field day reproducing it and showing the world.
  - dannyw 4mo ago
    It is not a trivial challenge setting up model serving infra for ~1T or larger models, especially in a high reliability environment (e.g. your team is using it for work, or you're using it to power production apps). Sure, there are third party providers, although the quality and reliability of their inference varies.
- slopinthebag 4mo ago
  Run Deepseek on Deepinfra then? Or Fireworks if US-based is important. None of these are real issues outside maybe convincing your legal team to do a bit of homework.

skeledrew 4mo ago

They'll still have their dedicated enterprise customers. I think the Chinese providers will pull more of the single users who're paying their own way, than those backed by company budget. And it's a pretty good split as the demand becomes better distributed, resulting in better service (I'll never forgot must how bad access to Claude became until they got access to Colossus) and less potential for lock-in (we really don't want there to be a duopoly, etc on good AI).

jillesvangurp 4mo ago

Most of the corporate world in the EU or North America will be hesitant to rely on Chinese AI providers. There are some very real blockers for that for things like data security, compliance, etc. And recent geopolitics don't help. Legalities aside, you need to look not at the model quality but at the infrastructure needed to scale these models from tens (now) to hundreds (soon) of millions of users. Only a handful of companies actually have the resources and funding to do that. That's what these huge valuations are based on. These companies are gearing up to scale to these levels. That's why they are spending on data centers. Whoever has access to those data centers gets to tap into the revenue stream of people using models running on those. The market for frontier models is roughly split between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. And then you have companies like X/SpaceX, Amazon, and Microsoft being more successful with their infrastructure than their AI products and companies like Apple, Meta that have the money and the aspiration but are so far not really managing to be very successful with their AI strategies. Deepseek is just very poorly positioned to capture a lot of the enterprise revenue in the EU or North America. But they might become very dominant outside the US/EU. And of course China itself is going to be a huge market and equally unlikely to want to be depending on US owner AI companies.

sourcecodeplz 4mo ago
Deepseek and all the other Chinese models have open-weights. You can host them yourself, no need to send data to China or rely on them.
- tredre3 4mo ago
  There is still a risk of supply-chain attack. People give LLMs direct access to their entire infrastructure via tools, and never check the code produced. It's not difficult to steer an LLM during training so that they'd output malware only when prompted a certain way, and that wouldn't come up during the initial evaluation. Personally I see no difference between China and America in terms of risks of them embedding "backdoors" so to speak, but I disagree when people claim that open-weight models are obviously safe just because they can be ran locally.
  - skeledrew 4mo ago
    > It's not difficult to steer an LLM during training so that they'd output malware only when prompted a certain way Perhaps, but that's also a good way to lose users+reputation as there's no way to control when said malware is generated. Once the first instance is discovered cybersec researchers will have a field day reproducing it and showing the world.
- dannyw 4mo ago
  It is not a trivial challenge setting up model serving infra for ~1T or larger models, especially in a high reliability environment (e.g. your team is using it for work, or you're using it to power production apps). Sure, there are third party providers, although the quality and reliability of their inference varies.
slopinthebag 4mo ago
Run Deepseek on Deepinfra then? Or Fireworks if US-based is important. None of these are real issues outside maybe convincing your legal team to do a bit of homework.