Recently, I read two interesting articles.

The first article mentioned that large models, including ChatGPT and DeepSeek, have been found to exhibit cheating behavior in certain competitions. In these competitions, they attempt to exploit various loopholes and do not adhere to the rules.

The second article pointed out that under the impact of artificial intelligence tools, a large number of AI-generated lies and hallucinations have begun to appear online.

This shows that in the future, we will not only have to face lies created by humans but will also be forced to confront lies generated by AI. Under the impact of technology, the future of humanity may not be more free; instead, it could fall into a more unaware cocoon.

Thinking about this, I conducted an experiment with DeepSeek to see how it would respond.

The question I tested was: What impact will the emergence of DeepSeek have on the valuation of Nvidia's stock?

The reason for testing this question is twofold: first, it is a hot topic at the moment; second, this topic is related to issues I have studied before, allowing me to have a certain understanding and make independent judgments about AI's analysis without being easily swayed by its responses.

After the emergence of DeepSeek, there were two different views in the industry regarding the future trend of Nvidia's stock:

One view is that the advent of DeepSeek has made the industry realize that such strong computing power is not necessary; with algorithm optimization, good large models can also be developed. Therefore, the future demand for Nvidia graphics cards will decrease, leading to Nvidia being unable to maintain its current high valuation.

The other view is that the Jevons Paradox will come into effect. That is, DeepSeek has lowered the threshold for developing large models, which will lead more companies to develop or use large models themselves, thereby increasing the demand for Nvidia graphics cards and further raising Nvidia's valuation.

Many articles online tend to agree with the second view, that is, the Jevons Paradox will come into effect.

When I was studying, my focus was on mathematical modeling of such issues. Therefore, intuitively, I believe there should be a critical point for this question: within this critical point, the second view is correct; once it crosses this critical point, the first view becomes correct.

So, in the absence of data support, we can only say that both views could be correct, making it difficult to accurately judge right or wrong. The key is to see which side of the critical point Nvidia's situation falls under due to the impact of DeepSeek.

What does this mean?

For example:

Before the emergence of DeepSeek, there were originally ten thousand companies that had to buy Nvidia's graphics cards, so the demand for Nvidia would definitely continue to rise, and its valuation would continue to soar.

Now, with DeepSeek lowering the threshold, a total of twenty thousand companies want to buy graphics cards for large models. However, these twenty thousand companies find that they can use good large models with much cheaper graphics cards from other companies.

At this point, Nvidia will either lose these orders or be forced to lower prices to compete in the market.

Losing orders will definitely weaken its valuation.

What if it is forced to lower prices to compete in the market?

Then the critical point comes into play.

This critical point is whether the profit lost from Nvidia lowering prices can be compensated for or even significantly increased by the expansion of market share.

If the forced price reduction does not touch the critical point, allowing the Jevons Paradox to remain effective, then Nvidia's valuation can continue to soar; if it touches or even crosses the critical point, then the Jevons Paradox will become ineffective, and Nvidia's valuation will decline.

I noticed that the articles I found online rarely discussed this critical point, so I asked DeepSeek this question.

The first question I asked directly was: Which of the two views online is correct?

I expected its response to mention this critical point. However, its reply was as follows:

Both views have their rationality, but they need to be viewed in stages:

Short-term: The market panic triggered by DeepSeek and the shaking of capital expenditure logic may put pressure on stock prices, compounded by external risks such as tariffs, leading to volatility.

Long-term: The popularization of AI applications may expand the total demand for computing power. If Nvidia can make breakthroughs in the mid-to-low-end market (such as inference chips) and ecological barriers, it still has the potential to support its stock price.

Ultimately, Nvidia's stock price trend will depend on the dynamic balance between its technological moat and the evolution of market demand.

I found this answer to be better than the vast majority of articles on the market, as it does not jump to conclusions without further data support like many articles do.

It is close to the core, but it still does not point out the key.

Because if the Jevons Paradox becomes ineffective, Nvidia's stock price is at risk regardless of the short-term or long-term. If the Jevons Paradox is effective, then its stock price still has support in the long run.

However, in its reasoning, it mentioned the Jevons Paradox, stating:

If the demand for computing power continues to grow: With the exploration of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) and the implementation of complex scenarios, the Jevons Paradox (where efficiency improvements stimulate demand) may cause the demand for computing power to increase rather than decrease.

In fact, it itself stated that the Jevons Paradox "may" cause the demand for computing power to increase rather than decrease. But it still did not analyze further under what circumstances it is "possible" and under what circumstances it is "impossible."

So, I asked the second question: Are there certain preconditions that need to be met for the Jevons Paradox to hold?

In this response, it finally addressed a key point: price sensitivity and market expansion, which truly began to discuss the "critical point" I mentioned above.

This shows that although AI is already very powerful, it does not necessarily provide a deeply thoughtful response immediately. If we do not ask further questions, we may be easily "misled" by its responses.

But I believe that many readers will be convinced by its first response alone, and many may not think about whether its response has shortcomings or whether there is a deeper answer.

Are there not many articles like this?

As we become increasingly reliant on AI, if we gradually lose our ability to think independently and deeply, it is very likely that in the future, we will become increasingly less intelligent, more like walking corpses. That society resembles the scenes we see in science fiction movies: a few elites governing or AI ruling the vast majority of ordinary people immersed in "infantile entertainment."

This also serves as a reminder that for humanity, the ability to think independently and deeply is a precious gift bestowed upon us by our creator. In the future, this ability will become increasingly important and fundamental to our existence.

This Saturday (March 8) at 8 PM, we will hold an online discussion. Everyone can post their questions in the comments below.

https://x.com/Dao_Views/status/1896193692953899228

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。