[johndough]

> why are you so defensive?

Because you made stuff up, did not show any proof, and ignored my proof to the contrary.

You made the claim:

    > Deepseek lies about costs systematically.

DeepSeek broke down their cost in great detail, yet you simply called it "lies", but did not even mention which specific number of theirs you claim is a lie, so your statement is difficult to falsify. You also ignored my request for clarification.

[elzbardico]

You’re citing deepseek unaudited numbers. This is not even close to a proof. Unless proven otherwise it is propaganda. Meanwhile we have several industry experts pointing not only towards DeepSeek ridiculous claims of efficiency, but also the lies from other labs.

[johndough]

Again, your claims are impossible to verify or falsify, because they are too unspecific.

> Meanwhile we have several industry experts pointing not only towards DeepSeek ridiculous claims of efficiency, but also the lies from other labs.

What are those "industry experts" saying that is made up and what is their basis for that?

> You’re citing deepseek unaudited numbers.

Which specific number are you claiming to be fake?

I could just guess blindly and find alternative sources for random numbers from DeepSeek's article.

For example, the tokens-per-second efficiency can also be calculated based on the 30k tps from this NVIDIA article: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-blackwell-delivers-...

But looking for other sources is a waste of my time, when you could just be more precise.