11 ms·
This is absolutely hilarious! :) ClosedAI scraped human content without asking and they explained why this was acceptable... but when the outputs of their trai
by semking 2y ago
This is absolutely hilarious! :)
ClosedAI scraped human content without asking and they explained why this was acceptable... but when the outputs of their training corpus is scraped, it is THEIR dataset and this is NOT acceptable!
Oh, the irony! :D
I shared a few screenshots of DeepSeek answering using ChatGPT's output in yesterday's article!
https://semking.com/deepseek-china-ai-model-breakthrough-security-risk/ https://semking.com/deepseek-china-ai-model-breakthrough-sec...
- semking 2y ago[flagged]
- marricks 2y agoAlso, DeepSeek is allegedly... better? So saying they just copied ClosedAI isn't really sufficient of an answer. Seems to be just bluster because the US Govt would probably accept any excuse to ban it, see TikTok.
- beAbU 2y agoHow can they ban something thats open source that you can just run on your own hardware?
- Drakim 2y agoThey banned certain branches of math during the cold war, it can be done.
- shafyy 2y agoIt's not open source. The provide the model and the weights, but not the source code and, crucially, the training data. As long as LLM makers don't provide the training data (and they never will, because then they will be admitting to stealing), LLMs are never going to be open source.
- sho_hn 2y agoThanks for reminding people of this. Open source means two things in spirit: (a) You have everything you need to be able to re-create something, and at any step of the process change it. (b) You have broad permissions how to put the result to use. The "open source" models from both Meta so far fail either both or one of these checks (Meta's fails both). We should resist the dilution of the term open source to the point where it means nothing useful.
- jprete 2y agoI think people are looking for the term "freeware" although the connotations don't match.
- sho_hn 2y agoAgreed, but the "connotations don't match" is mostly because the folks who chose to call it open source wanted the marketing benefits of doing so. Otherwise it'd match pretty well.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoOpen source means the source code is freely available. It’s in the name.
- idle_zealot 2y agoThe source being available means the code is "source available." Open implies more rights.
- deleted 2y ago
- fabianhjr 2y agoThere are illegal numbers in the USA land of the "free". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number > An AACS encryption key (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) that came to prominence in May 2007 is an example of a number claimed to be a secret, and whose publication or inappropriate possession is claimed to be illegal in the United States.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> illegal numbers in the USA land of the "free" This is a silly take for anyone in tech. Any binary sequence is a number. Any information can be, for practical purposes, rendered in binary [1]. Getting worked up about restrictions on numbers works as a meme, for the masses, because it sounds silly, but is tantamount to technically arguing against privacy, confidentiality, the concept of national secrets, IP as a whole, et cetera. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_source_coding_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_source_coding_th...
- sheepdestroyer 2y agoAll those things are not self-evident and thus debatable
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> not self-evident and thus debatable Totally agree. But prompting debate or even further thought isn’t the point of the meme.
- sheepdestroyer 2y agoI'd argue that, as satire, it's the main point ;)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> as satire, it's the main point There is thought-stopping satire and thought-provoking satire. Much of it depends on the context. I’m not getting the latter from a “USA land of the ‘free’” comment.
- superkuh 2y agoThere was an executive order passed by the previous administration that make using anything with more than 10 billion parameters illegal and punishable by government force if done without authorization. Of course like most government regulations (even though this is not a regulation, it is an executive action) the point is not to stop the behavior but instead to create a system where everyone breaks the regulation constantly so that if anyone rocks the boat they can be indicted/charged and dealt with. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24... >(k) The term “dual-use foundation model” means an AI model that is trained on broad data; generally uses self-supervision; contains at least tens of billions of parameters; is applicable across a wide range of contexts; and that exhibits, or could be easily modified to exhibit, high levels of performance at tasks that pose a serious risk to security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters, such as by: ...
- ceejayoz 2y agoThat order does not "make using anything with more than 10 billion parameters illegal and punishable by government force if done without authorization". It orders the Secretary of Commerce to "solicit input from the private sector, academia, civil society, and other stakeholders through a public consultation process on potential risks, benefits, other implications, and appropriate policy and regulatory approaches related to dual-use foundation models for which the model weights are widely available".
- derektank 2y agoMany regulations are created by executive action, without input from Congress. The Council on Environmental Quality, created by the National Environmental Policy Act, has the power to issue it's own regulations. Executive Orders can function similarly and the executive can order rulemaking bodies to create and remove regulations, though there is a judicial effort to restrict this kind of policymaking and return regulatory power back to Congress.
- Spooky23 2y ago
- bilekas 2y agoIf I'm no wrong wasn't PGP encryption once illegal to export ? Not quite the same but the government has a nice habit of feeling like they can bad the export of research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#Current_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
- beAbU 2y agoYou are right, but I cannot find a single example of such a ban actually being effective though. Information wants to be free and all that.
- KPGv2 2y agoBecause you haven't heard of the proprietary software that wasn't ever sold internationally because of these bans. Of course Joe Sixpack can throw their code up anywhere, but Joe Corporation gets wrecked if they try to sell it. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/complying-with-encryption-export-regulations https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/complying... For example, this is enforced by Apple Store.
- coliveira 2y agoBut that's not the goal, the goal is to protect the "intelectual property" only to American companies. Countries not in the "friends list" cannot sell products in that area without suffering repercussions. That's how the US has maintained technological dominance in some areas by restricting what other countries can do.
- calgoo 2y agoIf i remember correctly, if you changed the dropdown on the webpage to USA you could download the full version of PGP anyway.
- Prbeek 2y agoAdd PS1 too. The US government banned sale of PlayStation to China because the PLA would apparently have access to cutting edge chips for their missiles
- michaelt 2y agoMake commercial hosting illegal, and make the hardware to run it locally cost $6000+
- semking 2y agoI never said they are just a clone! There's an actual tech breakthrough! Read the two following sections of my blog post: 1. "Distilled language models" 2. "DeepSeek: Less supervision"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwup238 2y agoIt’s not better. In most of my tests (C++/QT code) it just runs out of context before it can really do anything. And the output is very bad - it mashes together the header and cpp file. The reasoning output is fun to look at and occasionally useful though. The max token output is only 8K (32K thinking tokens). O1 is 128k, which is far more useful, and it doesn’t get stuck like R1 does. The hype around the DeepSeek release is insane and I’m starting to really doubt their numbers.
- adamnemecek 2y agoThanks for saying this, I thought I was insane, DeepSeek is kinda bad. I guess it’s impressive all things considered but in absolute terms it’s not great.
- coliveira 2y agoI have run personal tests and the results are at least as good as I get from OpenAI. Smarter people have also reached the same conclusion. Of course you can find contrary datapoints, but it doesn't change the big picture.
- sebzim4500 2y agoTo be fair, it's amazing by the standards of six months ago. The only models that beat it are o1, the latest gemini models and (for some things) sonnet 3.6
- cdelsolar 2y agofalse. It seems better than o1 to me.
- gliptic 2y agoR1 is trained for a context length of 128K. Where are you getting 8K/32K? The model doesn't distinguish "thinking" tokens and "output" tokens, so this must be some specific API limitations.
- throwup238 2y ago
- mritchie712 2y agoopenai should pay creators, but: 1. scraping the internet and making AI out of it 2. using the AI from #1 to create another AI are not the same thing.
- zbshqoa 2y agoNumber 2 is already possible with open models. You can do distillation using Llama, which could likely be doing #1 to build their models (I'm not sure it's the case though)
- bugglebeetle 2y agoYeah, #1 is way worse and #2 falls under “turnabout is fair play.”
- epse 2y ago#1 destroys peoples willingness to publish and unfairly hogs bandwidth / creates costs for small hosters #2 makes a big corp a bit angry Indeed not the same thing
- latexr 2y ago> are not the same thing. You’re right. The second one is far more ethical. Especially when stealing from a thief. Doesn’t Sam Altman keep parroting they’re developing AI “for the good of humanity”? Well then, someone taking their model and improving on it, making it open-source, having it consume less, and having a cheaper API, should make him delighted. Unless he *gasp* was full of shit the whole time. Who could have guessed?
- perryizgr8 2y ago> Doesn’t Sam Altman keep parroting they’re developing AI “for the good of humanity”? “I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place better than we do” - Gavin Belson
- Palmik 2y agoI agree, (2) seems much less problematic since the AI outputs are not copyrightable and since OpenAI gives up ownership of the outputs. [1] So, if you really really care about ToS, then just never enter into a contract with OpenAI. Company A uses OpenAI to generate data and posts it on the open Internet. Company B scrapes open Internet, including the data from Company A [2]. [1]: Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output. [2]: This is not hypothetical. When ChatGPT got first released, several big AI labs accidentally and not so accidentally trained on the contents of the ShareGPT website (site that was made for sharing ChatGPT outputs). ;)
- pilooch 2y agoAny ML based service with an API is basically a dataset builder for more ML. This has been known forever and is actually a useful "law" of ML-based systems.
- sho_hn 2y agoAye, this should be obvious even to non-technical folks. Much has been written about how LLMs regurgitate the data they were trained on. So if you're looking for data to train on, you can certainly extract it there. Plus of course for people within the tech bubble, plenty of research results on the value of synthetically augmented and expanded training data that put the impact past just regurgitating source data. This whole episode is a failure of reporting what to expect next and projecting running costs etc. most of all.
- amelius 2y agoThis is why models should be open. Or at least they should have a local option.
- stackghost 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bloomingkales 2y agoI personally love this chef's kiss of a flip flop sam did here: https://blog.samaltman.com/trump https://blog.samaltman.com/trump https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1i7ry5m/sam_altman_glazes_trump/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/comments/1i7ry5m/sam_altman_g... Only a truly talented piece of shit can be as prolific as this. "He is irresponsible in the way dictators are." Chef's kiss. Edit: Kids, don't aspire to be like Altman. We as a community need to espouse more values than tech is gonna tech.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> don't aspire to be like Altman And don’t aspire to be like those who saw what he is but made peace with it in exchange for silver.
- gadders 2y agoYou mean all of the YC management, including PG?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- istjohn 2y agoHey now, that's not very curious of you. /s
- buran77 2y agoWell, anyone who will flex their spine in every (im)possible position as required of them, just to get even more money and power. I could understand that from someone with an empty stomach. But so many people doing it when their pockets are already overflowing is exactly the kind of rot that degrades an entire society. We're all just seeing the results so much better now that they can't even be bothered to pretend they ever more than this. Later edit: The way this submission fell ~400th spots after just two hours despite having 1250 points and 550 comments, had its comments flagged and shuffled around to different submissions as soon as they touched too close to YC&Co is a good mirror of how today's society works.
- belter 2y agoSo it is true, they run out of Data to steal? :-) And then where DeepSeek steal from next? Do they steal from themselves? Do they steal the stolen models they stole from the stolen data? The AI Ponzi scheme...
- troyvit 2y agoExactly this, especially as journalism melts down into slag. Soon all anybody will have to train on is social media, Wikipedia and GitHub, and that last one will slowly be metastasized by AI-generated code anyway. It reminds me of 1984 in a sense. "Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." Unlike 1984 I don't see this winnowing of new concepts as purposeful, but on the other hand I keep asking myself how we can be so stupid as to keep doing it.
- TypingOutBugs 2y agoScrew OpenAI, they scrape us without issues so someone scraped them. No issues with this.
- coliveira 2y agoBut the government will now claim this is against "national security". Only American companies are allowed to commit this kind of "sleight of hand".
- Imustaskforhelp 2y agoYes they would. But it would pointless. And clear hypocrisy as well.
- coliveira 2y agoHypocrisy or not, the US government has managed to make this work for a long time now, the Biden administration just proves the point. Thankfully, other countries are starting to catch up to this scam.
- Imustaskforhelp 2y agoYes , to be fair , As a foreigner (not a US citizen basically) I don't mean to offend somebody. But USA just seems to be build on top of Hypocrisy. Like the fact that US revolution was basically kickstarted by blatantly breaking the patent law (like there was this one mill specifically) , I think its a historic event. And now here we are ! The scam of national security. To be honest. People seem to be really kind on the fall of USA. I am not that interested since the rise of China terrifies me. But the hypocrisy of USA / losing such soft power (like here I am , from random country critiquing USA based on facts , it really downplays it being a superpower) that would be the downfall of USA. To me , the future terrifies me. In fact the present terrifies me. I think the world is running crazy or maybe its just me.
- 2y ago
- pen2l 2y agoWhile all of this is true, that DeepSeek wouldn't be here were it not for the research that preceded it notably Google's paper, then Llama, and ChatGPT which they're modeled after, its release still did something profound to their psyche, the motivation and self-actualization this instills to the Chinese. They witnessed the power of their accomplishments: a side-hustle project knocked off an easy trillion. This is only egging them on and will serve to ramp up their efforts even more. Separately, I do think that now that the Chinese leadership saw this, that they have the chops to pull this off and then some, they are probably going to rein in future innovations; they'll likely demand that the big future discoveries remain closed-sourced (or even unannounced/unpublicized).
- tedivm 2y agoOpenAI wouldn't be here without the work that Yann Lecun did at Facebook (back when it was facebook). Science is built on top of science, that's just how things work.
- wrasee 2y agoYes, but in science you reference your work and credit those who came before you. Edit: I am not defending OpenAI and we are all enjoying the irony here. But it puts into perspective some of the wilder claims circulating that DeekSeek was able to somehow complete with OpenAI for only $5M, as if on a level playing field.
- bugglebeetle 2y agoLike all those papers with their long lists of citations OpenAI has been releasing?
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y agoThat's only in academia. The same thing happens in commerce, only there is no (official) credit given.
- tedivm 2y agoOpenAI has been hiding their datasets, and certainly haven't credited me for the data they stole from my website and github repositories. If OpenAI doesn't think they should give attribution to the data they used, it seems weird to require that of others. Edit: Responding to your edit, Deepseek only claimed that the final training run was $5m, not that the whole process caught that (they even call this out). I think it's important to acknowledge that, even if they did get some training data from OpenAI, this is a remarkable achievement.
- coliveira 2y agoThey really lost their minds. They're all scared and worried because companies in other countries can also access the same data they stole from the Internet.
- rvz 2y agoThey have been out-grifted by DeepSeek and OpenAI is not happy about someone out-shining them on that. The best part is "their IP" was humanity's scraped content and they are angry that DeepSeek did their job for them and gave it away for free.
- cscurmudgeon 2y agoScraping data is different from scraping outputs from a model.
- jacobgorm 2y agoNo it is not, data is data, whether it gets loaded from a file on disk or generated by multiplying lots of matrices.
- idle_zealot 2y agoLike, in a strict literal sense, sure? Do you mean to make a claim about moral or legal differences?
- openrisk 2y agoBecause the data is mine and the model is yours?
- wkz 2y agoTechnically, sure. What is the moral distinction though?
- Rebelgecko 2y agoCopyright is weird and often legal ≠ moral, but I'm having a hard time constructing a mental model where it's ok to scrape a novel written by a person but it's not ok to scrape a story written by chatgpt
- 28304283409234 2y agoClosedAI? StolenAI!
- gruez 2y agoThe picture at the end showing deepseek's privacy policy and being concerned that it's "a security risk" is hilarious[1]. Basically every B2C company collects this sort of information[2], and is far less intrusive than what social networks collect[3]. But because it's Chinese and at the risk of overtaking Western companies, people are suddenly worried about device information and IP addresses? [1] https://semking.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DeepSeek-1024x642-png.avif https://semking.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DeepSeek-1024... [2] https://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-topics/privacy-policy/pcmcat204400050062.c?id=pcmcat204400050062 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-topics/privacy-policy/pcmc... [3] https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/ https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy/
- semking 2y agoOne of my core followers named Bruno basically said the same thing under my Linkedin post yesterday: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-only-takeaway-is-that-open-source-activity-7290017080458846208-hCyn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-o... I welcome friction, so I'll be blunt: I disagree with you, not because what you are saying is wrong but because you only consider systematic data collection. That's not the issue here. There's a difference between democracies like the United States or European countries, no matter how IMPERFECT they are, and a dictatorship that does not allow dissenting opinions. There's a difference in how the data collected will be used. Freedom of speech, even when it is relative, is better than totalitarianism.
- ryanobjc 2y agoIt’s also important to recognize that the Chinese government is known to walk into internet service companies and demand they censor, alter data, delete things. No court order or search warrant required. China considers industry to be completely subservient to government. Checks and balances are secondary to ideas like harmony and collective well being.
- semking 2y agoThank you for this balanced and essential comment which is entirely true!
- scotty79 2y ago"That's hilarious!" was my first reaction as well, when I heard about it the first time. When I came to HN and saw this story on top I was hoping this was the top comment. I was not disappointed. US AI folk were leading for two years by just throwing more and more compute at the same thing that Google threw them like a bone years ago (namely transformers). They made next to no innovation in any area other than how to connect more compute together. The idea of additional inference time compute, looping the network back on its own outputs, which is the only significant conceptual advancement of last years was something I, as a layman, came up with after few days of thinking why AI sucks and what can be done to make it able to tackle problems that require iterative reasoning. They announced it few weeks after I came up with the idea, so it was in the works for some time, but it shows you how basic idea it was. There was nothing else. Suddenly when there comes a small company that introduced few actual algorithmic advancements which resulted in 100x optimization which is something expected with algorithmic optimizations, the big AI suddenly went into full "dog ate my homework" mode. Blaming everyone and everything around. Let's not mention the fact that if full outputs of their models could enable them to train a better model at 1% cost then it puts them in even worse light that they didn't do it.
- ryanobjc 2y agoIt’s not often you get 100x optimization with some small improvements so I’m kind of skeptical. We have and apples and oranges thing here which deepseek is intentionally leaning into. They get very cheap electricity and are bragging about their cheap cost, and OpenAI etc typically brag about how expensive their training is. But it’s all pr and lies.
- enragedcacti 2y ago> They get very cheap electricity and are bragging about their cheap cost The cost of $5.5 million was quoted at $2/GPU-hour which is a reasonable price for on-demand H100s that anyone in the US could access, and likely on the high side given bulk pricing and that they are using nerfed versions. OpenAI might be all pr and lies but everything I've seen so far says that deepseek's claims about cost are legit.
- Leary 2y agoDoes this mean when you use OpenAI as an enterprise customer, they can see exactly the queries and answers? So much for privacy!
- api 2y agoSo far the whole business model of Silicon Valley since social media has been to monetize other peoples' content given out for free. The whole empire is built on this. I wonder if this is going to come to an end through a combination of social media fatigue, social media fragmentation, and open source LLMs just giving it all back to us for free. LLMs are analogous to a "JPEG for ideas" so they're just lossy compression blobs of human thought expressed through language.
- barnabee 2y ago> So far the whole business model of Silicon Valley since social media has been to monetize other peoples' content given out for free. The whole empire is built on this. It cannot die soon enough
- okdood64 2y agoNot to mention the total dodge when Murati was asked about training on the YouTube corpus during that television interview. Sorry for the Short: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M0QyOp7zqcY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M0QyOp7zqcY
- the_arun 2y agoI think the point is - OpenAI scraped public data - d1 - Trained their model to produce output - d2 - DeepSeek used d2 to reinforce their model OpenAI is mad about d2 (not d1). I'm not sure using public data is "stealing". In summary, these are two different things & need to be separate.
- redleader55 2y agoYou say "public", but what I think you mean is "publicly available". Even publicly available data has copyrights, and unless that copyright is "public domain", you need to follow some rules. Even licenses like Creative Commons, which would be the most permissive, come with caveats which OpenAI doesn't follow [0]. It is unclear if someone breaking someone else's copyright to use A can claim copyright on a work B, derived from A. My point is that OpenAI played loose with the copyright rules to build its various models, so the legality of their claims against DeepSeek might not be so strong. [0] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/
- the_arun 2y agoI am not saying OpenAI did good by using publicly available data. I meant these are separate activities. None is good. But DeepSeek is slightly better by making theirs opensource.
- xbar 2y agoOpenAI (sc)raped all the data it could. I do not accept your assertion that d1 was "public." It was accessible, for certain. OpenAI asserts 1. d2 was used by DeepSeek 2. All d2 belongs to OpenAI exclusively Both are debatable for large number of reasons.
- rubslopes 2y ago> Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.[1] Well, I guess they really helped make this a reality! [1] https://openai.com/about/ https://openai.com/about/
- didip 2y agofr fr, ClosedAI is being a comedian right now. They scraped literally all the content of the internet without permissions. And I won't even be surprised if they scraped the output of other LLMs as well.
- adzm 2y agoWhy does this post use DeepSink instead of DeepSeek at apparently random places? Is that just a pejorative pun like ClosedAI?
- skeeter2020 2y agoI share the sentiment here, but asking as a noob: does this mean the performance comparison is not really apples to apples? If it required the distillation of the expensive model in order to get such good results for a much lower price, is that shady accounting?
- schmit 2y agoEven more hilarious given their own charter: > We will attempt to directly build safe and beneficial AGI, but will also consider our mission fulfilled if our work aids others to achieve this outcome. > Our primary fiduciary duty is to humanity. We anticipate needing to marshal substantial resources to fulfill our mission, but will always diligently act to minimize conflicts of interest among our employees and stakeholders that could compromise broad benefit. > We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s global challenges.
- semking 2y agoAh yes: "duty to humanity"
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoI think one good thing to come out of all this tech elite flip flopping is that I now see these tech leaders for exactly who they are. It makes me kind of sad, because as someone who came of age early in the Web era I really wanted to believe that there was a bigger moral good to all we were doing. I now view any moralistic statement by any of these big tech companies as complete and total bullshit, which is probably for the best, because that is what it is. These companies now exist solely to amass power and wealth. They will still use moralistic language to try to motivate their employees, but I hope folks still see it for the complete nonsense that it is.
- radicality 2y agoI liked Matt Levine’s newsletter few days ago where he hypothesized scenarios where it’s much more profitable to short your competitors, then release a much better version of some widget completely free, and then profit $$$. Which is plausible here too, considering DeepSeek is made by a hedge fund.
- Imustaskforhelp 2y agoYes the irony is so thick in the air that it can be cut through using a swiss knife lol I had literally come to this post to say the same. You beat me to it. USA is going crazy over deepseek and to me , it just shows that the world is a black swan , an AI bubble. I am not saying AI has no use. I regularly use it to create something , but its just not recommended. I am going to stop using AI , to grow my mind. And its definitely way overpriced. People are investing so much money without seeing the returns? , and I think people are also using AI because of a sense of FOMO , I don't know , to me its funny . I really really want to create a index fund with strictly no AI companies. Since this doesn't feel diversified enough. Like sure nvidia gave a quarter of return the last year , but I mean , at this point , it almost feels the same as that of bitcoin. The reason I don't / won't invest in bitcoin is I don't want "that" risk. This has been a boggling year. I have realized that the world is crazy. Truly. Trump winning from going to the point of getting shot to deepseek causing nvidia / american stock market to go down , heck even bitcoin! , its so crazy , trump launching his meme coin. If the world is crazy. Just be the sane person around. You will stick around , that's my philosophy. I won't jump on AI wandwagon . But its still absolutely wild & horror seeing how a "sideproject" (deepseek) absolutely put american stock market in shambles. I want more diversifaction. I am not satisfied with the current system. This feels like a bubble and I want no part in it.
- amelius 2y agoIt looks like they want to spin this as "DeepSeek copied OpenAI". The general public/media might actually believe this is what happened.