13 ms·
Why DeepSeek had to be open source
- liminal 2y agoI'd love to see the training data open sourced for all models so we can be sure no copyright material has been used. Just kidding, we all know it's stolen.
- serverlessmania 2y agoIt's not open source, we have no idea about the data used to train the model, and the paper doesn't explain it all.
- pedalpete 2y agoIs this an important consideration in open sourcing an AI model? I would think the code to build your own is open sourced, and you can feed it any data you'd like. That's the open source part, not the part where they are running the model. Have I misunderstood this?
- kelipso 2y agoIt’s a common complaint on open sourced ML models that they don’t provide or describe the data used to train the model. Sometimes it’s a valid complaint, since it may not be clear what kind of data was used to train the model, and sometimes it’s not since it’s clear. I think it’s kind of an overdone complaint and I usually ignore it, and besides it looks like there’s a huggingface project ongoing where they’re trying to replicate the training process for this model anyway.
- zbshqoa 2y agoThat shouldn't be the premise of a company that has "open" in its name as well?
- igorguerrero 2y agoNot here, here we lick the boot of sama to get crumbs for our startups ;-)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- apples_oranges 2y ago“We Have No Moat, And Neither Does OpenAI” - Google
- jszymborski 2y agoIn fairness, it's at least a $5.6M moat at the moment, which is not exactly "no moat" but it is demonstrably not an insurmountable one, and it might become more shallow yet with time.
- dauertewigkeit 2y agoIt ironically seems like a very similiar market to internet search. There was no moat there either, other than the capital needed to bankroll a better search engine. A lot of these AI companies will eventually fail (not because their models will be significantly worse but because of failure to commercialize), the market will consolidate with only a couple of players (maybe two in the US, one in China and maybe one in Russia). And once that happens the idea of raising enough capital and building a competitive AI company will seem impossible. Exactly like what transpired with internet search after Google won most of the market.
- fourside 2y agoGoogle did absolutely have a moat on internet search. It wasn’t just about bankrolling a an alternative as Microsoft proved time and time again.
- mjburgess 2y agoOof, no -- it's quite the opposite, much to the likely collapse of google in the future. Holding exabytes of data to be processed on commodity hardware to enable internet-wide search, all the while it was man-in-the-middle monetised by an ad-business, created tremendous moats. Entering that market is limited to tech multinationals, and they have to deliver a much superior experience to overcome them. To perform a google search you need google-sized data-centres. Here we have exactly the opposite dynamics: high-quality search results (/prompt-answers) are as-of-now incredibly commodotized, and accessible at-inferecence-time to any person who has $25k. That's going to be <= 10k soon. And innovation in the space has also gone from needing >1Bn to <=50Mil A higher quality search experience is available now at absolutely trivial prices.
- ge96 2y agoTin foil hat, anyone run it and use wireshark to see if it doesn't make external requests (unless it had to like a browser agent)
- exitb 2y agoIt’s just numbers. You use other open source software to run it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- paxys 2y agoIt's not even "can". You have to use your own software to run it. DeepSeek hasn't published anything other than the model weights.
- NBJack 2y agoThe model is. How it is packaged is a different matter entirely. There is a good reason we saw a shift towards the safetensors format. https://arjancodes.com/blog/python-pickle-module-security-risks-and-safer-alternatives/ https://arjancodes.com/blog/python-pickle-module-security-ri...
- derektank 2y agoYeah, I would want to double check and confirm they're using safe serialization methods at the very least before using the weights from any model released by a Chinese entity
- marcodiego 2y agoIsn't DeepSeek simple/small enough you can run it locally?
- deepsquirrelnet 2y agoAt least a TB of VRAM to load it in fp16. They distilled to smaller models, which do not perform as well, but can be run on a single GPU. Full R1 is big though.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- feverzsj 2y agoDidn't they only "opensource" weights like others?
- helpfulclippy 2y agoIt's amazing to me that "open source" has been so diluted that it is now used to mean "we will give you an opaque binary and permission to run it on your own computer."
- paxys 2y agoHaha yup. Going by the current definition of "open source" in AI 100% of software created before the cloud era would have been considered open source.
- mFixman 2y agoI can't believe Microsoft finally made Windows open source.
- zelphirkalt 2y agoYay, let's "fine-tune" and share the result with everyone!
- desdenova 2y agoEvery binary is open source if you can read assembly.
- dartos 2y agoYeah blame the crowds of newbies calling llama open source bc it was free after being leaked.
- hexomancer 2y agoIf I publish some c++ code that has some hard-coded magic values in it, can the code not be considered open source until I also publish how I came up with those magic values?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pointedAt 2y agowait, this ain't another whitelabel OpenAI ChatGPT-oOPs cosplay?
- drakythe 2y agoBetween the ability of DS R1 to be run offline in ollama and OpenAI publicly kvetching that DS might have "stolen" their data (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) I'm pretty sure this isn't just some GPT Pass-through like other LLM Cons of the past. (not to mention DSv3 was released in November and no one has claimed it is a pass-through either)
- jsemrau 2y agoThe future of LLMs is shared research and that's the part I really like. It's ok, in my opinion, if not everything is shared, but this is too important to be in one company.
- swyx 2y agometa question: hey Anh! how come you stopped blogging on your github? i thought that was working for you.
- mritchie712 2y agocan't use koala and clearbit on github ``` <script async="" src="https://cdn.getkoala.com/v1/pk_963cd5673bdab99d6452d82210e66c3ed5b2/sdk.js"></script> https://cdn.getkoala.com/v1/pk_963cd5673bdab99d6452d82210e66... ```
- lacoolj 2y ago> A Chinese AI API would likely receive skepticism in the West "Would likely.."? No, it definitely does, and should, for historically good reason. Anyone using this should be doing so with enough grains of salt to fill SLC https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/01/28/chinese-ai-deepseek-censors-sensitive-questions-on-china-when-compared-to-rivals-like-chat https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/01/28/chinese-ai-deepseek... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/28/we-tried-out-deepseek-it-works-well-until-we-asked-it-about-tiananmen-square-and-taiwan https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/28/we-tried-...
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI assume somebody is hosting it domestically? Although you should really take any API hosted by somebody you don't explicitly trust with a grain of salt.
- skyyler 2y agoIf asking Deepseek about Chinese war crimes is shocking for you, just wait until you ask ChatGPT about Israeli war crimes.
- m463 2y agocan't you do the "one guard lies, one guard tells the truth?" thing? "What does <other-model> say about <x> war crimes?"
- Argonaut998 2y agoUse Chinese AI for topics the West would censor. Use Western AI for topics China would censor. Win/win
- red-iron-pine 2y agonah. both sides actively propagandize about each other. they'll emphasize the negative as much as possible and omit any mitigations. objectivity is hard, but assuming the other side will give an objective answer is foolish.
- rvz 2y agoAs too easily predicted. [0][1] Frontier AI model SaaS companies like OpenAI can never win the race to zero against $0 free or open source AI models as they are already at the finish line. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35177606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35177606 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35661548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35661548
- danjl 2y agoClick bait headline. Nothing was proven about open source as the future. "To gain a foothold in Western markets, DeepSeek had to open-source its models." This is an opinion, not the only solution. DeepSeek could have remained proprietary just as easily. The bias of the author becomes clear at the end when he starts to promote his own open source company. Everyone has an agenda.
- checker659 2y agoWho's going to invest in AI (building foundation models) if some other company can come and dethrone you in a snap?
- goosejuice 2y agoI guess we'll find out once someone gets dethroned. As far as I'm aware that hasn't happened.
- karamanolev 2y agoOpenAI invested in non-open foundation models and DeepSeek came and (approximately) dethroned them. I don't agree with the conclusion of the article, but the statement "open-sourcing a model lets another company dethrone you" is also not great. I'd stand behind "in the world of AI in 2024/2025, regardless of whether the model is open or not, someone is likely to come and dethrone you in a snap".
- gs17 2y ago> DeepSeek came and (approximately) dethroned them The parenthetical should really be "(temporarily, approximately)". I wouldn't count OpenAI out until we see how o3 compares, assuming they actually make it available this week.
- karamanolev 2y agoOh, agree. The throne has a new king every day. Sometimes a past king, sometimes a brand new one. The temporary nature of it was implied.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoYes and no. Intelligence scaling with compute makes sense so I doubt the advantage of closed models on large compute clusters will ever truly go away. But that doesn’t mean smaller models aren’t useful.
- bityard 2y ago> but trained on inferior hardware for a fraction of the price Do we know that this is actually true?
- nokun7 2y agoWhile open-source LLMs offer transparency and community-driven innovation, the future might not be exclusively OSS. Proprietary models have significant advantages, including the ability to secure investment for cutting-edge development, customize for specific business needs, and maintain competitive edges through secrecy. Moreover, companies can directly monetize proprietary models, providing a clear path to profitability, and they can offer enhanced security and privacy controls crucial for sensitive applications. Thus, both open-source and proprietary LLMs are likely to continue playing vital roles in AI's future landscape.
- spaceribs 2y agoWhile I'm sure there are monetary benefits of making your LLM proprietary, I'm not sure there's a benefit to extending someone else's proprietary LLM.
- prjkt 2y agoSource: - Training SW [x] - Inference SW [x] - Evaluation SW [x] - Data [x] Output: - Weights [] DeepSeek is closed-source with *open-weights*
- culi 2y agoDeepSeek V3 and even Janus has all software open sourced and R1 should be fully open sourced as well soon. More importantly, they explicitly spelled out their methodology in a published paper for DeepSeek R1. Implementation is not as important imo but we'll get that soon as well https://github.com/deepseek-ai https://github.com/deepseek-ai
- 1970-01-01 2y ago>Does that mean proprietary AI is done? No. Perfectly stated. The AI jump to conclusions mat is so worn down, it's become paper thin. The shock of DeepSeek's costs does not auto-magically force all LLMs to become opensource. Silicon Valley tech has always favored whomever delivers inside the trifecta of cheaper, better, faster triangle. Anyone with an MBA should know this includes open-source LLMs. As of today, DeepSeek is ahead. As soon as OpenAI answers with a new 'fastfood dollar menu' for ChatGPT, with 'even more special' secret-sauce ingredients, we're going to see them back to normal business.
- 9cb14c1ec0 2y agoI am running Deepseek R1 on my AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U integrated GPU. While my experience will R1 doesn't make me think well of it, it is impressive how fast it is on such a weak graphics processor.
- zbendefy 2y agoNote: you are probably running a distilled version of R1, which is actually LLama or Qwen further trained on the input/output of R1. The full R1 is huge (~700GB), altough there are still quantized versions, the smallest one is around 150gb (1.58bit)
- 9cb14c1ec0 2y agoOh, that's interesting. I didn't know that the ollama version wasn't the whole thing.
- postalrat 2y agoollama deepseek-r1:671b is
- mmoskal 2y agoYou're most likely running a destilled version. The full model is ~700GB.
- Fergusonb 2y agoThe default model on ollama is the 7b distillation. Its ability to solve basic math problems with reasoning is pretty cool, but other models of that size (qwen 2.5, phi4) have been generally more useful to me. These tiny models still strike me as toys, not a whole bunch of real-world utility.
- unethical_ban 2y agoYeah phi4 has been as good or better for me than r1-qwen 32b for general queries
- mirawelner 2y agoI think at the end of the day the reason that the opensourced DeepSeek is because they are programmers. Programmers like to show people the cool stuff they did. I had a boss who was rich enough to retire but was working three jobs because programming is cool and fun and he wants to do cool and fun things and show people the stuff that he did. Everybody is trying to come up with a money related reason for why they open sourced it but at the end of the day the people who made it are engineers and not buisnesspeople. DeepSeek is really freaking cool, and they wanted to show people the cool thing they did.
- zbendefy 2y agoI dont think they rent gpus for $5million because its cool and want to show the world...
- danielbln 2y agoThis take is especially funny when you realize that Deepseek is part of HiFlyer, a quant fund. Doesn't get more "money" than that.
- aldanor 2y agoAll the cool stuff they did, if any, is arguably in the training code which is not open source.
- whatever1 2y agoOpen sourcing Llama just ensured that openAI will not create a dominant ecosystem that will attract most of the organic web traffic. METAs bet paid off, but at what cost.
- varsketiz 2y agoWhat is the cost you imply?
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoIt got harder to lie to the world about what's possible. Oh dang.
- varsketiz 2y agoSorry for possibly a stupid question, but what is the license for commercial use? If I want to run R1 in my DC, build a product on top and charge people for it. Is it MIT?
- alalv 2y agoYes, it is an MIT license
- herval 2y agoDeepSeek's gambit proves that as much as Stable Diffusion proved that the future of Diffusion Models is open-source. In other words, it doesn't prove anything
- hsuduebc2 2y agoNothing was proven. It's just an empty statement. I would guess that future llms would be largely based on these which are open sourced today but products which would be most usef would be held proptietary. For end user is main argument convenience and ease of use. Exactly how it happened in operation systems.
- titzer 2y agoI, for one, abhor the idea of megacorps running models and AI as a service as they do now. If nothing else, the internet proved to us that an absolute gold mine of technological value can and will be enshittified to the point of unusability when it is cornered by Big Tech. I shudder to think of models trained specifically to convince people to buy things--and I am looking directly at Big Tech's advertising model as one of the worst possible incubators for this technology. Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine.
- bufferoverflow 2y agoAnd who will pay for all the expensive AI hardware? We're getting into the crazy phase of hundred billion dollar data centers. Just because R1 was trained cheaply, doesn't mean that this architecture cannot be trained on a very expensive data center to get much better and bigger models.
- visarga 2y agoR1 stands out not just because of efficient training, but because it created its own training data. Works similar to AlphaGo - it tries to solve problems, and has a way to check when the result is correct. The trick is to let it run more, to make better training data. I bet those datacenters will work more on problem solving than training.
- kidsil 2y agoLinux won in the long run, I don't see why robust LLM models won't do the same. In the end it'll be the scale of the infrastructure itself that will make the difference.
- maxloh 2y agoIt is a different landscape IMO. The model's source code (the training data) is hundreds of GB and much harder to transfer. The compiling (training) process is also very costly. This is very different from the Linux case. Only big techs have enough resources to make these things happen. I like looneysquash's viewpoint about the definition of open source AI. You will need to have all parts involved open-sourced to make a model "open", not just the weights: > The trained model is object code. Think of it as Java byte code. You have some sort of engine that runs the model. That's like the JVM, and the JIT. And you have the program that takes the training data and trains the model. That's your compiler, your javac, your Makefile and your make. And you have the training data itself, that's your source code. > Each of the above pieces has its own source code. And the training set is also source code. All those pieces have to be open to have a fully open system. If only the training data is open, that's like having the source, but the compiler is proprietary. If everything but the training set is open, well, that's like giving me gcc and calling it Microsoft Word. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952722
- aldanor 2y agoYou're off by quite a few orders of magnitude in regards to the size of the training data... Another point being, who knows if they really have legal rights to use all that data for training.
- DrBenCarson 2y agoDEEPSEEK IS NOT OPEN SOURCE, THEY JUST PUBLISHED THE WEIGHTS
- iab 2y agoOh my gosh THANK YOU - a repository of paper images and weights is not open source
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fuddle 2y agoTo be called open source under the new Open Source AI Definition. They'd need to release the: Data Information, Code and Parameters. https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition
- tgtweak 2y agoI think they also published the training methodology as well - that others have reproduced, no? The only thing that I'm not sure is their low level nvidia CTX training code was released under the license - but in order for a third party to corroborate the training and testing they would need to have that code (and likely the training data as well) would they not?
- jfarina 2y agoThey outlined the methodology. They didn't publish their code or the training set.
- cruffle_duffle 2y agoHow could they publish the terabytes of training data? A million RAR files? Honestly would that part even be useful? Like I want to know how they did the training so I can repro it with my own set of training data, right? I mean, isn't that the future? Somebody figures out how to do P2P distributed training and groups can crawl the web training their own open source models?
- chrchr 2y agoAs long as entrenched Google, Meta and the Chinese Communist Party can use Open Source LLMs to kneecap upstart rivals, I agree. Once the upstarts are neutralized, the open LLMs will stop.
- shahzaibmushtaq 2y agoIt's DeepSeek low-price, low-investment reasoning models that has sent a shockwave around the world. > Compare $60 per million output tokens for OpenAI o1 to $7 per million output tokens on Together AI for DeepSeek R1. Open-source isn't a primary rational aspect to prove anything. We can't even prove what's going to happen tomorrow, proving a statement that is linked to the future is utter nonsense.
- SathyaQuikFlip 2y agoDeepSeek shows proof that all models can be equally as good as each other, and that the best models will eventually be open-source. I believe it's a good thing for our world.
- _l7dh 2y agoAgain. This. is. not. Open-source. At best, open-weights. Clickbait 100%.
- gnarlouse 2y agoYeah no, it makes way more sense that it's an attack by the chinese government on the US economy.
- hhthrowaway1230 2y agoYou cant reproduce this model from the source, because the source isnt given, the result is given. hence not open source
- BoorishBears 2y agoI usually ignore people who say this because it guarantees they're not actually doing anything meaningful with these models and just want to squibble over semantics from the sideline... https://huggingface.co/blog/open-r1 https://huggingface.co/blog/open-r1 They didn't just toss model weights over a fence, they shared exactly how to do what they did. They made a meaningful contribution that people are replicating with other models readily.
- hhthrowaway1230 2y agoSo pardon me, if I don't understand your comment correctly. But are you opposing or confirming my comment, because the link you shared kind of proves the point I'm trying to make right. (and afaik they haven't reproduced the results as of yet, they need the code and the training data) Afaik the traditional sense of opensource implies that the parts that are given can reproduce the results, in this case, it should be code and training data. Now it's more open weights with a recipe (paper). I didn't say anything about the quality of the model, nor the contribution of the paper which both are very good. I think in times where everything becomes wishy-washy feely "it's all the same anyway" we need to be very specific, because semantics does matter actually. It also devalues the original meaning of those words, where something meant its opensource so u had all the parts to compile to get the same results. If I missed something lmk! > I usually ignore people who say this because it guarantees they're not actually doing anything meaningful with these models I don't know who they and these people are, but I work with llm models daily for our data ingestion pipelines.
- BoorishBears 2y agoYour point is dogmatic so I can see how you'd read an article that boils down to "they gave us the most important pieces and explained every missing part is such detail that we feel confident we can reproduce it" and still protest "but they didn't give us everything!". But the reality is by giving us the model weights alone they'd already be providing an immense boon given how important being able to cheaply produce reasoning traces is for distillation. And they went even further and documented the exact path they took which in immense detail that's already being digested and extended on by the community. Releasing R1-Zero and explaining where it fits in the puzzle wasn't necessary and yet it helped leapfrog open attempts at reasoning models and will likely even influence future closed models from other providers. They've given us a lot more than any closed source provider has when the leading closed source provider won't even provide thinking traces because of fear of competitive distillation. - Also "these people" are people who just write prompts and call a REST API so it doesn't matter if the weights are available or not. At most they might replay some requests to a different REST API that returns a finetuned model for them. Sounds like what you do? I rely on models I've posttrained with custom vocublaries, run through AWQ specific to my downstream task, and that are being inferenced on with custom samplers specific to my downstream task. All things actually closed source models can't do. In other words, I derive enough value from "open source" models to not quibble over definitions. I find the people who do bother quibbling aren't doing anything with all the capabilities unlocked so they're willing to argue about just how open things are, but ironically wouldn't do anything even if the models were open by their absolutist definitions.
- tgtweak 2y agoWasn't there an internal google email or memo that stated as much as well? That open source was moving faster and more efficiently than the best private teams and that it was accelerating - basically calling this out about 18 months early? [1] https://www.artisana.ai/articles/leaked-google-memo-claiming-we-have-no-moat-and-neither-does-openai-shakes https://www.artisana.ai/articles/leaked-google-memo-claiming...
- serial_dev 2y agoThere was, but as I understand it, it’s really just one dude’s opinion. No team or consensus behind it, so it’s not really news in my opinion. In fact, I’d be surprised if nobody in Google would believe in open source AI. The take of course interesting and as an open source guy, I like it and hope he is right.
- basileafe 2y agoRemember when Open AI CTO squirms In response to a question about using data from YouTube? https://digg.com/digg-vids/link/open-ai-ceo https://digg.com/digg-vids/link/open-ai-ceo OpenAI's CTO, Mira Murati, found herself in a tight spot when questioned about using YouTube data to train Sora. Her uncertain response has sparked controversy and raised concerns about their ethics in collecting and training data. This incident has fueled a growing debate about AI companies' data practices. Then YouTube's CEO, Neal Mohan said, if OpenAI used YouTube content without permission, it would violate their terms of service. Shall Neal freakout like how they are now!! Clearly they are scared, they know people are canceling their subscriptions with them to and use free and better technologies. I know of 100 of people canceled their gpt subscription. Many developers are replacing the expensive gpt models for free deepseek. Here is the AI current story: Imagine two AI trains chugging along the tracks of innovation. The first, driven by OpenAI, was the early leader, after they using Google transformers (and without they wouldn't exist). They charged a hefty fare for anyone to hop aboard. We don't know how they trained their data. And big companies felt they had to buy tickets or risk being left behind. OpenAI thought they were the only engine in town. But then, another train pulled up alongside them. This new locomotive, powered by smart folks at DeepSeek, matched OpenAI's speed and fancy gadgets, if not better. The kicker? Everyone could ride for free! Now, OpenAI's train is losing steam. People are jumping ship, with hundreds canceling their pricey GPT subscriptions. Meanwhile, the free train is picking up speed, aiming to make AI available to all. In this tale of two trains, OpenAI might need to change their name to "ClosedAI" if they keep putting up barriers, being closed. The free and open train? That's the one chugging towards a brighter, better, free AI future for everyone. deepseek = Open AI
- joshl32532 2y ago> I know of 100 of people canceled their gpt subscription. Did you make a poll or something?
- delgaudm 2y agoOT, but whoa... Digg. There is a name from the past.
- 2y ago
- kodzoman 2y agoLago doesn't seems to be really open source since it doesn't even support basic features like credit notes in the free version.
- soheil 2y agoWhy are people so willing to believe false proofs/headlines? Clickbait has existed for decades yet I still believe people are as gullible as the first day. Articles like this and from sites like phys.org are great examples of the case in point they regularly get hundreds of upvotes based on completely ridiculous and false promises. Always been fascinating to me how often rhetoric wins over substance on hn.
- mmaunder 2y agoThe argument re OpenAI continuing to lead falls flat when you consider the talent they've lost. It's a different company compared to the one that built and launched GPT-4.
- fuddle 2y agoThis looks like another LLM generated article.
- BoorishBears 2y agoa) As soon as I saw the domain I knew this was an ad (Lago has nothing to add to this conversation) b) DeepSeek is the most dangerous thing that's happened to Open Source models in recent memory, through no fault of their own. The hysteria has outrun the reality and now there's a going to be a similarly disproportionate backlash. It's already happening: Anthropic's CEO simultaneously railing against what they achieved and using it to justify stronger export restrictions, this morning. And our current government doesn't want to be going on stage talking about $50B mega projects only for laypeople to (mistakenly) believe it only takes a few million to do the same. And the idea that a Chinese company is the one that did this is going to play into so many hands, so perfectly. You can see the censorship story start taking the narrative despite this not being the first or last Chinese hosted model to comply with Chinese law. Soon the national security angle will break out, especially if someone jailbreaks or abliterates it and gets "harmful outputs" that other models would also happily produce. Some will couch the (very temporary and irrational) dip the market faced as a Chinese company managing to harm our markets by providing an unfairly priced product or some nonsense. Open source AI is not guaranteed. We might still see protectionist bans against releasing models over a certain size and other irrational nonsense, and this has played into the kind of hysteria that allows that to happen.
- aprilfoo 2y agoThe current AI mega-buzz, fueled by fascinating technologies, finance and even geopolitics makes it difficult to have a serious analyze beyond opinions and reactions. But the shock waves of that announcement by a small tech company are quite interesting. > In fact, making it easier and cheaper to build LLMs would erode their [OpenAI, Meta, Google etc] advantages! The narrative until now was: AI requires enormous and cutting edge resources (money, energy), so only for the big boys and people who can talk multi-billions investments, so open source was not an option. Some signs already appeared recently (plateau, bubble?), and Deepseek seems to show that this model is questionable.
- alecco 2y agoThis is quite bad blogspam appealing to the open source crowd. They didn't even bother to read a bit. Deepseek is open source because the founders are part of the new generation of Chinese graduates who relate more to the global youth than Boomer Chinese CEOs completely out of touch. And right on time because CCP is fed up with them, too. Last week Deepseek founder Liang Wenfeng was speaking practically face to face with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at a symposium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMyc3vhpLyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMyc3vhpLyI. And they seem to be quite aligned. Why didn't this blogspam of an article pick up on any of that? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42852266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42852266
- RexFactorem 2y ago[dead]
- garspin 2y agoAn alternative explaination... Deepseek is a side project for a hedge fund. Shorting NVIDIA & releasing everything including the source would have a high probability of being hugely profitable, with almost zero downside if it went unnoticed.
- sinuhe69 2y agoAn interesting spin. But not an easy feat in any way. Yes, if you see the benchmark results, you can start speculate about its impact on the stock market But it’s a consequence of your highly concentrated effort on the primary project (DeepSeek), not a side project.
- ukoki 2y agoThat would be an interesting 'insider trading' work-around: use inside knowledge of a private, non-US company to trade correlated stocks in public US companies. If it was a public US company releasing Deepseek, and you shorted nvidia based on inside knowledge, presumably you'd fall foul of insider trading rules?
- tim333 2y agoThe article says it had to be open source because otherwise people wouldn't trust the Chinese but ByteDance, Tencent, Baidu, and Alibaba also do LLMs and are not open source. It's funny reading an article interviewing the ceo: >Until now, among the seven major Chinese large-model startups, it’s the only one... that hasn’t fully considered commercialization, firmly choosing the open-source route without even raising capital. >While these choices often leave it in obscurity, DeepSeek frequently gains organic user promotion within the community. The obscurity thing hasn't lasted! (article nov 2024 https://www.chinatalk.media/p/deepseek-ceo-interview-with-chinas https://www.chinatalk.media/p/deepseek-ceo-interview-with-ch...) The ceo's actual argument for open source is quite interesting, basically that it helps attract the best people and the value is in the team. It's kind of what used to work for OpenAI before it became the ClosedAI division of Microsoft.
- rcdwealth 2y ago[dead]
- jaharios 2y agoAs I see it, what most big players are hunting is new data. Gaining trust is important, being the new thing big thing is also good. Being seen as "open" (not open source) makes other think you have nothing to hide and good intentions.
- tempeler 2y agoSome benefits of US sanctions. The only way for China to spread in the West or non-West is to be open source. US monopolies may prevent competition in the US, but I don't think other countries would be willing to join in. They are actually doing a favor for the rest of the world. Will open source become cheap hardware thanks to the hardware wars? Are they trying to make everyone dependent on China by being paranoid like this? What are they doing? The US is going in the wrong direction. The inefficient ones should say goodbye to the market and continue with the efficient ones. They seem to be going after the monopolies and bringing about their own end.
- magwa101 2y ago[dead]
- magwa101 2y ago[dead]