17 ms·
Also, 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 wo
by marricks 2y ago
Also, 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[deleted]
- KPGv2 2y agoAt the risk of being called rms, no, that's not what open source means. Open source just means you have access to the source code. Which you do. Code that is open source but restrictively licensed is still open source. That's why terms like "libre" were born to describe certain kinds of software. And that's what you're describing. This is a debate that started, like, twenty years ago or something when we started getting big code projects that were open source but encumbered by patents so that they couldn't be redistributed, but could still be read and modified for internal use.
- sho_hn 2y ago> Open source just means you have access to the source code. Which you do. No, they also fail even that test. Neither Meta nor DeepSeek have released the source code of their training pipeline or anything like that. There's very little literal "source code" in any of these releases at all. What you can get from them is the model weights, which for the purpose of this discussion, is very similar to compiler binary executable output you cannot easily reverse, which is what open source seeks to address. In the case of Meta, this comes with additional usage limitations on how you may put them to use. As a sibling comment said, this is basically "freeware" (with asterisks) but has nothing to do with open source, either according to RMS or OSI. > This is a debate that started, like, twenty years ago For the record, I do appreciate the distinction. This isn't meant as an argument from authority at all, but I've been an active open source (and free software) developer for close to those 20 years, am on the board of one of the larger FOSS orgs, and most households have a few copies of FOSS code I've written running. It's also why I care! :-)
- beAbU 2y agoThanks, I was not aware of this distinction. But I think my argument still stands though? Users can run Deepseek locally, so unless the US Gov't wants to reach for book burning levels or idiocy, there is not really a feasible way to ban the American public of running DeepSeek, no?
- coliveira 2y agoPeople say this, but when it comes to AI models, the training data is not owned by these companies/groups, so it cannot be "open sourced" in any sense. And the training code is basically accessing that training data that cannot be open sourced, therefore it also cannot be shared. So the full open source model you wish to have can only provide subpar results.
- sheepdestroyer 2y agoThey could easily list the data used though. These datasets are mostly known and floating around. When they are constructed, instructions for replication could be provided too
- Timon3 2y agoIsn't this the same situation that any codebase faces when one thinks about open sourcing it? I can't legally open source the code I don't own.
- 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