Deep Impact
We recorded 23 claims from this post. 23 can’t be checked. 8 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (23)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“In an AI context, reasoning works by breaking down a prompt into a series of different steps with "considerations" of different approaches — effectively a Large Language Model checking its work as it goes, with no thinking involved, because these models do not "think" or "know" stuff.”
Our reading: AI reasoning models do not think or know anything; reasoning is an LLM checking its work step by step.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“At this point, it's fairly obvious that OpenAI wasn’t anywhere near the “forefront of AI development,” and now that its competitive advantage is effectively gone, there are genuine doubts about what comes next for the company.”
Our reading: It is fairly obvious that OpenAI wasn't anywhere near the forefront of AI development, its competitive advantage is now effectively gone, and there are genuine doubts about what comes next for the company.
No horizon
Qualifier: fairly obvious
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“As I've written before, OpenAI simply burns money, has been allowed to burn money, and up until recently likely would've been allowed to burn even more money, because everybody — all of the American model developers — appeared to agree that the only way to develop Large Language Models was to make the models as big as humanly possible, and work out troublesome stuff like "making them profitable" later”
Our reading: OpenAI burns money, has been allowed to, and until recently likely would have been allowed to burn even more, because all American model developers appeared to agree that the only way to develop LLMs was to make them as big as possible and work out profitability later.
No horizon
Qualifier: appeared to agree
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“Synthetic data might work where the output is something that you could figure out on a TI-83 calculator, but when you get into anything a bit more fuzzy (like written text, or anything with an element of analysis) you’ll likely start to encounter unhappy side effects..”
Our reading: Synthetic training data may work for unambiguous domains like math but will likely cause bad side effects for fuzzy domains like text or analysis.
No horizon
Only if: for fuzzy domains like written text or analysis
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“This doesn’t mean that we know for a fact that DeepSeek distilled 4o or Claude, but frankly, it would be odd if they didn’t.”
Our reading: DeepSeek likely distilled GPT-4o or Claude, though this is not known for certain.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“My mistake was — if you can believe this — being too generous to the AI companies, assuming that they didn’t pursue efficiency because they couldn’t, and not because they couldn’t be bothered.”
Our reading: He says he was too generous in assuming that AI companies didn't pursue efficiency because they couldn't, when potentially they didn't because they couldn't be bothered.
No horizon
Qualifier: 'potentially, nobody was trying' (preceding hedge)
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“Nevertheless, OpenAI and Anthropic both have enough money and hiring power to have tried — and succeeded — in creating a model this efficient and capable of running on older GPUs, except what they actually wanted was more rapacious growth and the chance to build even bigger data centers with even more compute.”
Our reading: OpenAI and Anthropic had the resources to build a model as efficient as DeepSeek's but preferred growth and bigger data centers.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“OpenAI has pledged $19 billion to fund the "Stargate" data center — an amount it is somehow going to raise through further debt and equity raises, despite the fact that it’s likely already in the process of raising another round as we speak just to keep the company afloat.”
Our reading: OpenAI is likely already raising another funding round just to stay afloat, on top of its $19 billion Stargate pledge.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Let's be frank: these companies aren't building shit. OpenAI and Anthropic are both limply throwing around the idea that "agents are possible" in an attempt to raise more money to burn, and after the launch of DeepSeek, I have to wonder what any investor thinks they're investing in.”
Our reading: OpenAI and Anthropic 'aren't building shit' and are limply floating the idea that agents are possible in an attempt to raise more money to burn, leaving him to wonder after DeepSeek what investors think they are investing in.
No horizon
Qualifier: in an attempt to
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“If OpenAI wants to do its own cheaper, more-efficient model, it’ll likely have to create it from scratch, and while it could do distillation to make it "more OpenAI-like" using OpenAI's own models, that's effectively what DeepSeek already did.”
Our reading: If OpenAI wants a cheaper, efficient model, it will likely have to build it from scratch.
No horizon
Only if: if OpenAI wants a cheaper, more efficient model
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Conditional forecast
“Even with OpenAI's much larger team and more powerful hardware, it's hard to see how creating a smaller, more-efficient, and almost-as-powerful version of o1 benefits the company, because said version has, well, already been beaten to market by DeepSeek, and thanks to DeepSeek will almost certainly have a great deal of competition for a product that, to this day, lacks any real killer apps.”
Our reading: If OpenAI builds a smaller, more efficient, almost-as-powerful o1, it is hard to see how that benefits the company, because DeepSeek has already beaten it to market and it will almost certainly face a great deal of competition for a product that still lacks killer apps.
No horizon
Only if: OpenAI creates a smaller, more efficient version of o1
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“It still isn't clear if these models are going to be profitable — as discussed, it's unclear who funds DeepSeek and whether its current pricing is sustainable — but they are likely going to be a damn sight more profitable than anything OpenAI is flogging.”
Our reading: DeepSeek's models are likely to be much more profitable than OpenAI's products, though their profitability is uncertain.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“Putting aside my personal beliefs for a second, it’s fairly obvious why these companies wouldn’t want to create something like DeepSeek — because creating an open source model that uses less resources means that OpenAI, Anthropic and their associated hyperscalers would lose their soft monopoly on Large Language Models.”
Our reading: It is fairly obvious that OpenAI, Anthropic and their hyperscalers wouldn't want to create something like DeepSeek, because an efficient open-source model would cost them their soft monopoly on LLMs.
No horizon
Qualifier: fairly obvious
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“Large Language Models are, in and of themselves, a fairly bland software product, which is why we’re yet to see any killer apps.”
Our reading: LLMs are a bland software product, which is why no killer apps have emerged.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“Even OpenAI’s push into the federal government, with the release of ChatGPT Gov, is unlikely to reverse its dismal fortunes.”
Our reading: ChatGPT Gov is unlikely to reverse OpenAI's dismal financial fortunes.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Recommendation or value judgment
“Post-DeepSeek, there isn’t really a compelling argument for investing hundreds of billions of capital expenditures in data centers, buying new GPUs, or even pursuing Large Language Models as they currently stand.”
Our reading: After DeepSeek, there is no compelling argument for hundreds of billions in data center capex, new GPUs, or current-style LLMs.
No horizon
Qualifier: post-DeepSeek
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“I’d argue that despite the significant price difference between o1 and DeepSeek’s r1 reasoning model, the real danger to both OpenAI and Anthropic is DeepSeek v3, which competes with GPT-4o.”
Our reading: He would argue that, despite the large price difference between o1 and R1, the real danger to OpenAI and Anthropic is DeepSeek V3, which competes with GPT-4o.
No horizon
Qualifier: I'd argue
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“Fundamentally, the magic has died. There’s no halo around Sam Altman or Dario Amodei’s head anymore, as their only real argument was “we’re the only ones that can do this,” something that nobody should’ve believed in the first place.”
Our reading: Altman and Amodei have lost their aura because their claim to be uniquely capable has been disproven.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“In any case, if I had to guess, the result will be the markets accepting that generative AI isn’t the future.”
Our reading: His guess is that markets will come to accept that generative AI is not the future.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“As I’ve said before, I believe we’re at peak AI, and now that generative AI has been commoditized, the only thing that OpenAI and Anthropic have left is their ability to innovate, which I’m not sure they’re capable of doing.”
Our reading: We are at peak AI, and OpenAI and Anthropic may not be capable of the innovation they now depend on.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Forecast
“I could absolutely see Meta releasing its own version of DeepSeek’s models — it has the GPUs and Zuckerberg can never be fired, meaning that if he decided to simply throw billions of dollars into specifically creating his own deep-discounted LLMs to wipe out OpenAI he absolutely could.”
Our reading: He could absolutely see Meta releasing its own version of DeepSeek's models, and if Zuckerberg decided to throw billions into deep-discounted LLMs to wipe out OpenAI, he absolutely could.
No horizon
Qualifier: wiping out OpenAI depends on Zuckerberg deciding to commit billions
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Causal claim
“It’s not essential, and it’s only been treated as such because the media (and the markets) ran away with a narrative they barely understood.”
Our reading: ChatGPT is not essential and has only been treated as essential because the media and markets ran away with a narrative they barely understood.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Rhetoric
“It’s all been a con, a painfully-obvious one, one I’ve been screaming about since February 2024, trying to explain that beneath the hype was an industry that provided modest-at-best outcomes rather than resembling any kind of “next big thing.””
Our reading: The generative AI industry has been a con delivering modest-at-best outcomes.
No horizon
Held from this post (8)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- Attribution is uncertain
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently