Are the markets staying irrational longer than I can comprehend or....

poseidon1

Alexland said:

cloud_dog said:

I feel a tad happier with today's movements.  Takes a little bit of the froth out. 

I was just thinking of you and this thread when checking the markets and exchange rates this morning!

A useful Bloomberg video explaining the consternation in the tech sector from China's DeepSeek AI.

https://youtu.be/jDax-3B5Xuo?si=s3Ow5sw-oSUaIa4j

Curiously ( at the moment), it is the UK investment trusts such as SMT, Monks and JGGI which have reacted more negatively to this news compared to the big 7 of the S & P.

Be interesting see what level they all close at today

Linton

m_c_s said:

I was deeply seeking the cause of the slight panic is today.
Why spend $500bn when you can get something more efficient for $10Bn!

Indeed.  If China can come up with a better, cheaper AI the recent AI-driven boom in US tech looks very silly. That is the risk of betting on the headlines.  The issue is not whether AI will change the world but rather who will reap the rewards. If I had to bet it would be China. Fortunatey I can back both.

kinger101

Linton said:

m_c_s said:

I was deeply seeking the cause of the slight panic is today.
Why spend $500bn when you can get something more efficient for $10Bn!

Indeed.  If China can come up with a better, cheaper AI the recent AI-driven boom in US tech looks very silly. That is the risk of betting on the headlines.  The issue is not whether AI will change the world but rather who will reap the rewards. If I had to bet it would be China. Fortunatey I can back both.

But Keir says we're gonna win AI

Alexland

Linton said:

Indeed.  If China can come up with a better, cheaper AI the recent AI-driven boom in US tech looks very silly. That is the risk of betting on the headlines.  The issue is not whether AI will change the world but rather who will reap the rewards. If I had to bet it would be China. Fortunatey I can back both.

I would prefer the Americans to win any tech battles as the issues around ownership, structure and governance of China trading entities make them uninvestable for me. I'm old fashioned and like my trackers to actually own a share of the company and their boards to act in the shareholders' best interests. That's why I tend to stick to Dev World and shun EM exposure. So far by chance that has done well but who knows going forward.

Hoenir

kinger101 said:

Linton said:

m_c_s said:

I was deeply seeking the cause of the slight panic is today.
Why spend $500bn when you can get something more efficient for $10Bn!

Indeed.  If China can come up with a better, cheaper AI the recent AI-driven boom in US tech looks very silly. That is the risk of betting on the headlines.  The issue is not whether AI will change the world but rather who will reap the rewards. If I had to bet it would be China. Fortunatey I can back both.

But Keir says we're gonna win AI

If the cost of implementing AI comes down.  Then it's a free market. Remember Betamax. Destroyed by VHS. 

Nick_Dr1

Hoenir said:

kinger101 said:

Linton said:

m_c_s said:

I was deeply seeking the cause of the slight panic is today.
Why spend $500bn when you can get something more efficient for $10Bn!

Indeed.  If China can come up with a better, cheaper AI the recent AI-driven boom in US tech looks very silly. That is the risk of betting on the headlines.  The issue is not whether AI will change the world but rather who will reap the rewards. If I had to bet it would be China. Fortunatey I can back both.

But Keir says we're gonna win AI

If the cost of implementing AI comes down.  Then it's a free market. Remember Betamax. Destroyed by VHS. 

Spent a bit of time wondering what your point was, as Betamax was a technically superior system than VHS but both were inferior to video 2000, which had an 8 hour double sided cassette.
The success of VHS was widely reported as being due to the !!!!!! industry deciding to use it as the medium of choice. The reality was probably related but was more to do with JVC allowing the technology to be open source and cutting deals with content suppliers. Thus they recognised that it was really just  content delivery platform and the actual technology was irrelevant to the user.

I suspect we are heading towards the same solution as we have now with operating systems. A battle between an open source system with diluted resources to support and a plethora of variations, and a few closed shop monopolies being slavishly monetised, but users only caring about what it can actually do, and if it does it good enough. In this world of misinformation though, we have to worry about different peoples definitions of "good enough"

So I guess your point was that if you lower the barrier to entry, then there is lots of competition, which is good for the user.