The drop in memory stocks seems counterintuitive to me.

The demand for memory isn't going to go down, we'll just be able to do more with the same amount of memory.

Well, when a companies have 100billion dollar incentives to make discoveries like this, I don't know if we should assume this is the only optimization that will happen.

Given that increasing model size doesn't yield proportional increases in intelligence, there is a world where these datacenters don't have a positive ROI if we make these models even a fraction as effective as the human brain.

It especially doesn't make sense considering that TurboQuant has been public on arXiv for almost a year: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19874 So it predates the late-2025 RAM price surge! https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/

I think that either investors were extremely skittish that the stocks might crash and jumped at the first sign of trouble (creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) or they were trading on non-public information and analysts who don't have access to said information are reading too much into the temporal coincidence of the Google Research blog highlighting this paper.

Well considering basically the entire market was down these past few days, Google included, its unlikely attributable to this paper alone. Its most likely correlated with general war/trade route restrictions/potential recession fears, or at least, more correlated with those than it is with this paper.

This paper was released a year ago and was probably part of how google got to 1m context before other labs.

[flagged]