16 ms·

I think there's two different things going on here: "DeepSeek trained on our outputs and that's not fair because those outputs are ours, and you shouldn't take

• riantogo 2y ago
  Why would it cast any doubt? If you can use o1 output to build a better R1. Then use R1 output to build a better X1... then a better X2.. XN, that just shows a method to create better systems for a fraction of the cost from where we stand. If it was that obvious OpenAI should have themselves done. But the disruptors did it. It hindsight it might sound obvious, but that is true for all innovations. It is all good stuff.
  • rockemsockem 2y ago
    I think the prevailing narrative ATM is that DeepSeek's own innovation was done in isolation and they surpassed OpenAI. Even though in the paper they give a lot of credit to Llama for their techniques. The idea that they used o1's outputs for their distillation further shows that models like o1 are necessary. All of this should have been clear anyway from the start, but that's the Internet for you.
    • aprilthird2021 2y ago
      > the prevailing narrative ATM is that DeepSeek's own innovation was done in isolation and they surpassed OpenAI I did not think this, nor did I think this was what others assumed. The narrative, I thought, was that there is little point in paying OpenAI for LLM usage when a much cheaper, similar / better version can be made and used for a fraction of the cost (whether it's on the back of existing LLM research doesn't factor in)
      • aiono 2y ago
        That's only the case if you don't need to use the output of a much more expensive model.
      • TheGRS 2y ago
        Yes, well the narrative that rocked the stock market is different. Its looking at what DeepSeek did and assuming they may have competitive advantage in this space and could outperform OpenAI at their own game. If the narrative is actually that DeepSeek can only reach whatever heights OpenAI has already gotten to with some new tricks, then markets will probably refocus on OpenAI's innovations and price things accordingly, even if the initial cost is huge. It also means OpenAI probably needs a better moat to protect its interests. I'm not sure where the reality is exactly, but market reactions so far have basically followed that initial narrative and now the rebuttal.
        • addicted 2y ago
          The idea that someone can easily replicate an OpenAI model based simply on OpenAI outputs is, I’d argue, immeasurably worse for OpenAI’s valuation than the idea that someone happened to come up with a few innovations that leapfrogged OpenAI. The latter could be a one time thing, and/or OpenAi Could still use their financial might to leverage those innovations and get even better with them. However, the former destroys their business model and no amount of intelligence and innovation from OpenAI protects them from being copied at a fraction of the cost.
        • aprilthird2021 2y ago
          > Yes, well the narrative that rocked the stock market is different. How do you know this? > If the narrative is actually that DeepSeek can only reach whatever heights OpenAI has already gotten to with some new tricks, then markets will probably refocus on OpenAI's innovations and price things accordingly Why? If every innovation OpenAI is trying to keep as secret sauce becomes commoditized quickly and cheaply, then why would markets care about any innovations they have? They will be unable to monetize them.
          • 2y ago
    • joe_the_user 2y ago
      The idea that they used o1's outputs for their distillation further shows that models like o1 are necessary. Hmm, I think the narrative of the rise of LLMs is that once the output of humans has been distilled by the model, the human isn't necessary. As far as I know, DeepSeek adds only a little to the transformers model while o1/o3 added a special "reasoning component" - if DeepSeek is as good as o1/o3, even taking data from it, then it seems the reasoning component isn't needed.
      • david-gpu 2y ago
        > I think the narrative of the rise of LLMs is that once the output of humans has been distilled by the model Distillation is a term of art in AI and it is fundamentally incorrect to talk about distilling human-created data. Only an AI model can be distilled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_distillation#Methods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_distillation#Metho...
        • joe_the_user 2y ago
          Meh, It seems clear that the term can be used informally to denote the boiling down of human knowledge, indeed it was used that way before AI appeared in the popular imagination.
          • david-gpu 2y ago
            In the context in which you said it, it matters a lot. >> The idea that they used o1's outputs for their distillation further shows that models like o1 are necessary. > Hmm, I think the narrative of the rise of LLMs is that once the output of humans has been distilled by the model, the human isn't necessary. If deepseek was produced through the distillation (term of art) of o1, then the cost of producing deepseek is strictly higher than the cost of producing o1, and can't be avoided. Continuing this argument, if the premise is true then deepseek can't be significantly improved without first producing a very expensive hypothetical o1-next model from which to distill better knowledge. That is the argument that is being made. Please avoid shallow dismissals. Edit: just to be clear, I doubt that deepseek was produced via distillation (term of art) of o1, since that would require access to o1's weights. It may have used some of o1's outputs to fine tune the model, which still would mean that the cost of training deepseek is strictly higher than training o1.
    • hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
      >shows that models like o1 are necessary. But HOW they are necessary is the change. They went from building blocks to stepping stones. From a business standpoint that's very damaging to OAI and other players.
  • KingOfCoders 2y ago
    OpenAI couldn't do it, when the high cost of training and access to GPUs is their competitive advance against startups, they can't admit that it does not exist.
  • gmd63 2y ago
    Why not just copy and paste the model and change the name? That's an even more efficient form of distillation.
    • wgjordan 2y ago
      Even assuming the model was somehow publicly available in a form that could be directly copied, that would be a more blatant form of copyright infringement. Distillation launders copyrighted material in a way that OpenAI specifically has argued falls under fair use.
  • Imnimo 2y ago
    I think it would cast doubt on the narrative "you could have trained o1 with much less compute, and r1 is proof of that", if it turned out that in order to train r1 in the first place, you had to have access to bunch of outputs from o1. In other words, you had to do the really expensive o1 training in the first place. (with the caveat that all we have right now are accusations that DeepSeek made use of OpenAI data - it might just as well turn out that DeepSeek really did work independently, and you really could have gotten o1-like performance with much less compute)
    • SpaceManNabs 2y ago
      My question is if deepseek r1 is just a distilled o1, i wonder if you can build a fine tuned r1 through distillation without having to fine tune o1.
    • MrLeap 2y ago
      o1 wouldn't exist without the combined compute of every mind that led to the training data they used in the first place. How many h100 equivalents are the rolling continuum of all of human history?
      • dchichkov 2y ago
        It should be possible to learn to reason from scratch. And the ability to reason in a long context seems to be very general.
        • Nevermark 2y ago
          How does one learn reasoning from scratch? Human reasoning, as it exists today, is the result of tens of thousands of years of intuition slowly distilled down to efficient abstract concepts like "numbers", "zero", "angles", "cause", "effect", "energy", "true", "false", ... I don't know what reasoning from scratch would look like without training on examples from other reasoning beings. As human children do.
          • 2y ago
  • iforgot22 2y ago
    "Then use R1 output to build a better X1" is the part I'm not sure about. Is X1 going to actually be better than R1?
  • Sophira 2y ago
    Honestly, it's kind of silly that this technology is in the hands of companies whose only aim is to make money, IMO.
    • goatlover 2y ago
      It's because they're the ones who could raise the money to make those models. Academics don't have access to that kind of compute. But the free models exist.
    • lenerdenator 2y ago
      Well, originally, OpenAI wasn't supposed to be that kind of organization. But if you leave someone in the tech industry of SV/SF long enough, they'll start to get high on their own supply and think they're entitled to insane amounts of value, so...
  • qwertox 2y ago
    They're standing on the shoulders of giants, not only in terms of re-using expensive computing power almost for free by using the outputs of expensive models. It's a bit of a tradition in that country, also in manufacturing.
    • unreal37 2y ago
      I thought OpenAI GPT took Wikipedia and the content of every book as inputs to train their models? Everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants.
      • qwertox 2y ago
        What I meant to say was that OpenAI did put a lot of money into extracting value out of the pile of (partially copyrighted) data, and that DeepSeek was freeloading on that investment without disclosing it, making them look more efficient than they truly are.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
    • bigfudge 2y ago
      How do you think manufacturing in the US got started? Everyone is on someone’s shoulders.
  • dontreact 2y ago
    Is there any evidence R1 is better than O1? It seems like if they in fact distilled then what we have found is that you can create a worse copy of the model for ~5m dollars in compute by training on its outputs.
  • ospray 2y ago
    They did do that themselves it's called o3.
  • dartos 2y ago
    What does “better” really even mean here? Better benchmark scores can be cooked
  • herodoturtle 2y ago
    Thanks for the insightful comment. I have a question (disclaimer: reinforcement learning noob here): Is there a risk of broken telephone with this? Kinda like repeatedly compressing an already compressed image eventually leads to a fuzzy blur. If that is the case then I’m curious how this is monitored and / or mitigated.
  • anothernewdude 2y ago
    If they're training R1 on o1 output on the benchmarks - then I don't trust those benchmarks results for R1. It means the model is liable to be brittle, and they need to prove otherwise.
  • patcon 2y ago
    Are we it rediscovering the evolutionary benefit of progeny (from an information theoretic lens)? And is this related to the lottery ticket hypothesis? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03635.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03635.pdf
  • indymike 2y ago
    Bad things happen in tech when you don't do the disrupting yourself.
  • RHSman2 2y ago
    When will over training happen on the melange of models at scale? And will AGI only ever be an extension of this concept? That is where artificial intelligence is going. Copy things from other things. Will there be a AI Eureka moment where it deviates and knows where and why the reason it is wrong?
• 827a 2y ago
  There is a third possibility I haven't seen discussed yet: That DeepSeek, illegally, got their hands on an OpenAI model via a breach of OpenAI's systems. Its easy to laugh at OpenAI and say "you reap what you sow", I'm 100% in that camp, but given the lengths other Chinese entities have gone to when it comes to replicating Western technology; we should not discount this. That being said, breaching OAI's systems, re-training a better model on top of their closed source model, then open sourcing it: That's more Robinhood than Villain I'd say.
  • alecco 2y ago
    That would require stealing the model weights and the code as OpenAI has been hiding what they are doing. Running models properly is still quite artistic. Meanwhile, they have access to Meta models and Qwen. And Meta models are very easy to run and there's plenty of published work on them. Occam's Razor.
    • ardit33 2y ago
      How hard it is, if you have someone inside with the access of the code? If you have 100s of people with full access, not hard to have someone that is willing to sell it or do some industrial espionage...
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Lots of if's here. They need specific US employee contacts at a company thars quickly growing and one of those needs to be willing to breach their contracts to share it. That contact also needs to trust that Deepseek can properly utilize such code and completely undercut their own work. Lot of hoops when there's simply other models to utilize publicly
        • foobarian 2y ago
          How big are the weights for the full model? If it's on the scale of a large operating system image then it might be easy to sneak, but if it's an entire data lake, not so much.
• tempeler 2y ago
  On another subject, if it belongs to OpenAI because it uses OpenAI, then doesn't that mean that everything produced using OpenAI belongs to OpenAI? Isn't that a reason not to use OpenAI? It's very similar to saying that you used Google and searched; now this product belongs to Google. They couldn't figure out how to respond; they went crazy.
  • dathinab 2y ago
    The US ruled that AI produced things are by themself not copyrightable. So no, it doesn't belong to OpenAI. You might be able to sue for penalties for breach of contract of the TOS, but that doesn't give them the right to the model. And even if it doesn't give them any right to invalidate unbound copyright grants they have given to 3rd parties (here literally everyone). Nor does it prevent anyone from training their own new models based on it or prevent anyone from using it. Oh, and the one breaching the TOS might not even have been the company behind DeepSeek but some in-between 3rd party. Naturally this is under a few assumptions: - the US consistently applies it's own law, but they have a long history of not doing so - the US doesn't abuse their power to force their economical opinions (ban DeepSeek) on other countries - it actually was trained on OpenAI, but uh, OpenAI has IMHO shown over the years very clearly that they can't be trusted and they are fully in-transparent. How do we trust their claim? How do we trust them to not retrospectively have tweaked their model to make it look as if DeepSeek copied it?
    • protocolture 2y ago
      >The US ruled that AI produced things are by themself not copyrightable. The US ruled that the AI cannot be the author, that doesn't lead like so many clickbait articles suggest, that no AI products can be copyrighted. 1 Activist tried to get the US copyright office to acknowledge his LLM as the author, who would then provide him a license to the work. There was no issue with himself being the original author and copyright holder of the AI works. But thats not what was being challenged.
      • dathinab 2y ago
        but even then wouldn't the people using OpenAI still be the author/copyright holder and never OpenAI? (as no human on OpenAIs side is involved in the process of creating the works)
• valine 2y ago
  The existence of R1-zero is evidence against any sort of theft of OpenAI's internal COT data. The model sometimes outputs illegible text that's useful only to R1. You can't do distillation without a shared vocabulary. The only way R1 could exist is if they trained it with RL.
  • natdempk 2y ago
    I don’t think anyone is really suggesting they stole COT or that it is leaked, but rather that the final o1 outputs were used to train the base model and reasoning components more easily.
    • valine 2y ago
      The RL is done on problems with verifiable answers. I’m not sure how o1 slop would be at all useful in that respect.
• FooBarWidget 2y ago
  There are literally public ChatGPT conversations data sets. For the past 2 years it's been common practice for pretty much all open source models to train on them. Ask just about any open source model who they are and a lot of the time they'll say they're ChatGPT. Why is "having obtained o1 generated data" suddenly such a huge news, to the point of warranting conspiracy theories about undisclosed/undiscovered breaches at OpenAI? Nobody ever made a fuss about public ChatGPT data sets until now. No hacking of OpenAI is needed to obtain ChatGPT data.
• me551ah 2y ago
  This is going to have a catastrophic effect on closed source AI startup valuations. Because this means that anyone can copy any LLM. The person who trains the model, spends the most amount of money. Everyone else can create a replica at lower cost
  • iforgot22 2y ago
    Maybe anyone can copy any LLM with sufficient querying. There are still ways to guard one.
  • amlib 2y ago
    Why is that bad? If a powerful entity can scrape every piece of media humanity has to offer and ignore copyright then why should society let then profit unrestricted from it? It's only fair that such models have no legal protection around their usage and can be used and analyzed by anyone as they see fit. The only reason this hasn't been codified into laws is because those same powerful entities have been busy trying to do regulatory capture.
  • matt-p 2y ago
    Good.
• km144 2y ago
  Reasonable take, but to ignore the politics of this whole thing is to miss the forest for the trees—there is a big tech oligarchy brewing at the edges of the current US administration that Altman is already participating in with Stargate, and anti-China sentiment is everywhere. They'd probably like the US to ban Chinese AI.
  • captainbland 2y ago
    Yeah especially when it's making waves in the market and hundreds of times more efficient than their best and brightest came up with under their leadership.
• ComputerGuru 2y ago
  The suggestion that any large-scale AI model research today isn’t ingesting output of its predecessors is laughable. Even if they didn’t directly, intentionally use o1 output (and they didn’t claim they didn’t, so far as I know), AI slop is everywhere. We passed peak original content years ago. Everything is tainted and everything should be understand in that context.
  • brianstrimp 2y ago
    > We passed peak original content years ago. In relative terms, that's obviously and most definitely true. In absolute terms, that's obviously and most definitely false.
• s17n 2y ago
  > This is obviously extremely silly, because that's exactly how OpenAI got all of its training data in the first place - by scraping other peoples' data off the internet. OpenAI has also invested heavily in human annotation and RLHF. If all DeepSeek wanted was a proxy for scraped training data, they'd probably just scrape it themselves. Using existing RLHF'd models as replacement for expensive humans in the training loop is the real game changer for anyone trying to replicate these results.
  • KennyBlanken 2y ago
    "We spent a lot of labor processing everything we stole" is...not how that works. That's like the mafia complaining that they worked so hard to steal those barrels of beer that someone made off with in the middle of the night and really that's not fair and won't someone do something about it?
    • s17n 2y ago
      Oh, I don't really care about IP theft and agree that it's funny that openai is complaining. But I don't think its true that deepseek is just doing this because they are too lazy to scrape the internet themselves - its all about the human labor that they would otherwise have to pay for.
      • KennyBlanken 2y ago
        That's assuming what a known prolific liar has said is true... The most famous example would be him contacting ScarJo's agent to hire her to provide her voice for their text-to-speech bot, them being told to go pound sand, and doing it anyway, and then lying about (which they got away with until her agent released a statement saying they'd approached her and she told them to fuck off.)
        • Ukv 2y ago
          > and doing it anyway, and then lying about To my understanding, this is not true. The "Sky" voice was based on a real voice actor they had hired months before contacting Johansson, with the casting call not mentioning anything about sounding like Johansson. [0] I think it's plausible that they noticed some similarity and that's what prompted them to later reach out to see if they could get Johansson herself, but it's not Johansson's voice and does not appear to be someone hired to sound like her. [0]: https://archive.is/BNFvh https://archive.is/BNFvh
• reissbaker 2y ago
  You're right that the first claim is silly, but the second claim is pretty silly too — they're not claiming industrial espionage, they're claiming a breach in ToS. The outputs of the o1 thinking process aren't user-visible, and never leave OpenAI's datacenters. Unless DeepSeek actually had a mole that stole their o1 outputs, there's nothing useful DeepSeek could've distilled to get to R1's thought processes. And if DeepSeek had a mole, why would they bother running a massive job internally to steal the data generated? It would be way easier for the mole to just leak the RL training process, and DeepSeek could quietly copy it rather than bothering with exfiltrating massive datasets to distill. The training process is most likely like, on the order of a hundred lines of Python or so, and you don't even need the file: you just need someone to describe it to you. Much simpler than snatching hundreds of gigabytes of training data off of internal servers... Plus, the RL process described in DeepSeek's paper has already been replicated by a PhD student at Berkeley: https://x.com/karpathy/status/1884678601704169965 https://x.com/karpathy/status/1884678601704169965 So, it seems pretty unlikely they simply distilled R1 and lied about it, or else how does their RL training algo actually... work? This is mainly cope from OpenAI that their supposedly super duper advanced models got caught by China within a few months of release, for way cheaper than it cost OpenAI to train.
• HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  DeepSeek-R0 (based on DeepSeek-V3 base model) was only trained with RL, no SFT, so this isn't at all like the "distillation" (i.e SFT on synthetic data generated by R1) that they also demonstrated by fine tuning Qwen and LLaMa. Now, DeepSeek may (or may not) have used some O1 generated data for the R0 RL training, but if so that's just a cost saving vs having to source some reasoning data some other way, and in no way reduces the legitimacy of what they accomplished (which is not something any of the AI CEOs are saying).
• znpy 2y ago
  This really got me thinking that open ai should have no ip claim at all, since all their outputs and stuff are basically a ripoff of the entire human knowledge and IPs of various kinds.
  • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    The law and common sense often are at odds.
• nullc 2y ago
  There is a big difference between being able to train on the reasoning vs just the answers, which they can't against o1 because it's hidden. There is also a huge difference between being able to train on the probabilities (distillation) vs not, which again they can and did do with the llama models and can't directly with OpenAI because the conceal the probability output.
• nonrandomstring 2y ago
  I think the more interesting claim (that Deepseek should make for lols) is that it wasn't them who trained R1. No, it was O1's idea. It chose to take the young R1 as its padawan.
• miki123211 2y ago
  > This is obviously extremely silly, because that's exactly how OpenAI got all of its training data IANAL, but It is worth noting here that DeepSeek has explicitly consented to a license that doesn't allow them to do this. That is a condition of using the Chat GPT and the OpenAI API. Even if the courts affirm that there's a fair use defence for AI training, DeepSeek may still be in the wrong here, not because of copyright infringement, but because of a breach of contract. I don't think OpenAI would have much of a problem if you train your model on data scraped from the internet, some of which incidentally ends up being generated by Chat GPT. Compare this to training AI models on Kindle Books randomly scraped off the internet, versus making a Kindle account, agreeing to the Kindle ToS, buying some books, breaking Amazon's DRM and then training your AI on that. What DeepSeek did is more analogous to the latter than the former.
  • freen 2y ago
    Did OpenAI abide by my service’s terms of service when it ingested my data?
    • cortesoft 2y ago
      Did OpenAI have to sign up for your service to gain access?
      • thorncorona 2y ago
        Can you steal someone else’s laptop if they stood up to get a drink?
        • gizajob 2y ago
          If their OS is open to the internet and you can scrape it and copy it off while they’re gone, then that would be about the right analogy. And OpenAi and DeepSeek have done the same thing in that case.
        • rpastuszak 2y ago
          What?
• alach11 2y ago
  If we assume distillation remains viable, the game theory implications are huge. It’s going to shift the market of how foundation models are used. Companies creating models will be incentivized to vertically integrate, owning the full stack of model usage. Exposing powerful models via APIs just lets a competitor clone your work. In a way OpenAI’s Operator is a hint of what’s to come
• bjourne 2y ago
  > "DeepSeek trained on our outputs, and so their claims of replicating o1-level performance from scratch are not really true" Someone has to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in ML research you always have a dataset and a model. They are distinct entities. It is plausible that output from OpenAI's model improved the quality of DeepSeek's dataset. Just like everyone publishing their code on GitHub improved the quality of OpenAI's dataset. What has been the thinking so far is that the dataset is not "part of" or "in" the model any more than the GPUs used to train the model are. It seems strange that that thinking should now change just because Chinese researchers did it better.
• XorNot 2y ago
  Yep: this is face-saving my Sam Altman. OpenAI has a message they need to tell investors right now: "DeepSeek only works because of our technology. Continue investing in us." The choice of how they're wording that of course also tells you a lot about who they think they're talking to: namely, "the Chinese are unfairly abusing American companies" is a message that is very popular with the current billionaires and American administration.
• pizzathyme 2y ago
  This is a fascinating development because AI models may turn out to be like pharmaceuticals. The first pill costs $500 million to make, the second one costs pennies.
  • chupy 2y ago
    Companies are still charging 100x for the pills that cost pennies to produce. Besides deals with insurance companies and governments, one of the ways that they are still able to pull this is convincing everyone that it's too dangerous to play with this at home or buying it from an Asian supplier. At least with software we had until now a way to build and run most things without requiring dedicated super expensive equipment. OpenAI pulled a big Pharma move but hopefully there will be enough disruptors to not let them continue it.
  • motoxpro 2y ago
    What a nice analogy.
  • shadofx 2y ago
    The solution is to create a health insurance system which burdens only Americans with the $500m cost, while India is allowed to make the drug for pennies for the rest of the world.
• hintymad 2y ago
  > DeepSeek trained on our outputs, and so their claims of replicating o1-level performance from scratch are not really true" This is at least plausibly a valid claim. Some may view this as partially true, given that o-1 does not output its CoT process.
• matt-p 2y ago
  Even for the latter point (If true, I'd call this assertion highly questionable), so what? That's honestly such a academic point, who really cares? They've been outcompeted and the argument is 'well if we didn't let people access our models, they would of taken longer to get here' so what?? The only thing this gets them is an explanation as to why training o1 cost them more than 5 million or whatever, but that is in the past the datacentre has consumed the energy.. the money has gone up in fairly literal steam.
• blantonl 2y ago
  It’s literally a race to the bottom by “theft of data” Whatever that means. The legal system right now in shambles and flat footed. Knowing our current government leadership, I think we’re going to see some brute force action backed up by the United States military.
• javier2 2y ago
  Its a decent point if their models were not trained in isolation, but used o1 to improve it. But its rich from OpenAI to come complain DeepSeek or anyone else used their data for training. Get out fellow theives.
• naet 2y ago
  “We engage in countermeasures to protect our IP, including a careful process for which frontier capabilities to include in released models, and believe . . . it is critically important that we are working closely with the US government to best protect the most capable models from efforts by adversaries and competitors to take US technology.” The above OpenAI quote from the article leans heavily towards #1 and IMO not at all towards #2. The later would be an extremely charitable reading of their statement.
  • ripped_britches 2y ago
    What they say explicitly is not what they say implicitly. PR is an art.
• therealpygon 2y ago
  Guess it is a good thing the AI output can’t be copyrighted, so at most they violated a policy.
• csomar 2y ago
  That's still problematic because any model that OpenAI trains can now be "stolen" and essentially rendered "open".
• m348e912 2y ago
  > "DeepSeek trained on our outputs" I'm wondering how Deepseek could have made 100s of millions of training queries to OpenAI and not one person at OpenAI caught on.
  • tisc 2y ago
    Maybe they use AI to monitor traffic, but it is still learning :)
  • stef25 2y ago
    Mechanical turks ?
• fanfanfly 2y ago
  The data that OpenAI has certainly is better than what Deepseek has in your second argument. And OpenAI always has access to this kind of data, right?
• PeterStuer 2y ago
  Ironically Deepseek is doing what OpenAI originally pledged to do. Making the model open and free is a gift to humanity. Look at the whole AI revolution that Meta and others have bootstrapped by opening their models. Meanwhile OpenAI/Microsoft, Antropic, Google and the rest are just trying to look after number 1 while trying to regulatory capture an AI for me but not for thee outcome of full control.
  • jajko 2y ago
    I don't think it makes sense to look at some previous PR statements of Altman et al re this when there a tens of billions floating around and egos get inflated to moon sizes. Farts in the wind have more weight, but this goes for all corporate PR. Thieves yelling 'stop those thieves' scenario to me, they just were first and would not like losing that position. But its all about money and consequently power, business as usual.
    • jeanlucas 2y ago
      But it makes sense to expose their blatantly lies whenever possible to diminish the credibility they are trying to build while accusing others of the same they did
      • jajko 2y ago
        Oh yes I agree with all of you that lies should be exposed, also who lies like that once will lie again, 0 doubt there. Just don't set the expectations bar too high to start with is all I am saying. Folks that get so high up money and power wise aren't nice people, period. Even if nice normal guy without any sociopathic traits would suddenly shoot so high, the environment and pressures would deform them pretty quickly. Also, I would consider only some leaked private conversations with close people as representative truth, not some PR statements carefully crafted by team of experts. Happy to be proven wrong, still waiting for an example #1 to give me some hope.
    • handsclean 2y ago
      Yes, but we were duped at the time, so it’s right and good that we maintain light on and anger at the ongoing manipulation, in the hope of next time recognizing it as it happens, not after they’ve used us, screwed us, and walked away with a vast fortune.