3 ms·

> DeepSeek has strong backing from the government now that they have made a break through This is one thing I'd like western governments to implement as well.

by _lvbh 2y ago

> DeepSeek has strong backing from the government now that they have made a break through This is one thing I'd like western governments to implement as well. When such a potentially world changing technology comes up, fund its research and socialize its benefits. Instead, all we take from China is more surveillance, censorship, and anti-encryption laws (UK)

spiderfarmer 2y ago
And open source models.
delusional 2y ago
They are. There's a ton of research taking place at public institutions and by government contract. We socialize the benefit by charging taxes on the profits. If you instead mean something like "we should give already rich billionaires even more billions to toy around with" then no. We should not do that. Let's cut the parasitic billionaires out, and just fund the researchers. You know, like we are doing.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  you can complain about "parasitic billionaires", and some probably qualify, but academic institutions aren't majority-responsible for LLMs. transformers came out of google and, although some academics toyed with them, most of the interesting work has been from companies. i care more about results than sticking it to the "evil billionaire" or whatever. perhaps the better question is why "parasitic billionaires" and their companies are producing better results than academic institutions, and how we can fix said institutions to get them running well again.
  - jodleif 2y ago
    Better results in what way? Why do they need “fixing”? Do you think shareholder value is a real proxy for scientific progress?
    - mordae 2y ago
      Yes they do. There have been broken by neoliberal policies for quite some time. Rich have gutted them out to force researchers into selling out to the private sector instead of just giving the fruits of the research to everyone under equal conditions.
      - _bin_ 2y ago
        entirely aside from where value accrues relative to where it's created, it's just true that universities aren't building what are pretty interesting and promising new technologies. you're mistaking a positive statement for a normative one, which is a depressingly common turn of events on the internet. it is simply true that all this stuff is getting built by corporations, which is not a value judgement as to that being good. as i said, we should be thinking about why corporations are beating out our academic institutions, because that's the starting point to fix them.
        delusional 2y ago
        Opinions can vary on what is "interesting". Personally, I find LLMs extremely boring from a scientific standpoint. If they turn out to be a product, they could be extremely valuable, but if they fail in the marketplace, they don't offer any interesting insights into the nature of the universe of computer science. LLMs are a technology of engineering, not science. What is clear though is that none of that "interesting" AI stuff would exist without the mountains of research done by academic institutions. Google may have cemented "Attention" as a concept in LLM style AI, but the math to do that didn't come from nowhere. That math isn't thought of as a "technology" because it's not valuable without some product development. Academic institutions don't do that product development. That's precisely what makes you think they're being "beaten" OpenAI and DeepSeek are not beating academic institutions in any metric the academic institutions should care about. That's just true.
- _lvbh 2y ago
  By "Socialize the benefits" I mean open sourcing and preventing corporations from abusing it to suppress wages
OtomotO 2y ago
ONLY if it's Open Source! I am done paying taxes upon taxes upon taxes (not US based) and helping others becoming richer. It's totally fine for the government to add backing, but then it must be Open Source OR it must partly belong to the citizens! Quid pro quo!
- dragonelite 2y ago
  Yeah the research result and IP should belong to the public commons, if the initial researchers get a head start with exploiting the IP im fine with that.
PeterStuer 2y ago
We do massively back research and innovation with public money. But then we privatize the gains.

by _lvbh 2y ago

spiderfarmer 2y ago

And open source models.

delusional 2y ago

They are. There's a ton of research taking place at public institutions and by government contract. We socialize the benefit by charging taxes on the profits. If you instead mean something like "we should give already rich billionaires even more billions to toy around with" then no. We should not do that. Let's cut the parasitic billionaires out, and just fund the researchers. You know, like we are doing.

_bin_ 2y ago
you can complain about "parasitic billionaires", and some probably qualify, but academic institutions aren't majority-responsible for LLMs. transformers came out of google and, although some academics toyed with them, most of the interesting work has been from companies. i care more about results than sticking it to the "evil billionaire" or whatever. perhaps the better question is why "parasitic billionaires" and their companies are producing better results than academic institutions, and how we can fix said institutions to get them running well again.
- jodleif 2y ago
  Better results in what way? Why do they need “fixing”? Do you think shareholder value is a real proxy for scientific progress?
  - mordae 2y ago
    Yes they do. There have been broken by neoliberal policies for quite some time. Rich have gutted them out to force researchers into selling out to the private sector instead of just giving the fruits of the research to everyone under equal conditions.
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      entirely aside from where value accrues relative to where it's created, it's just true that universities aren't building what are pretty interesting and promising new technologies. you're mistaking a positive statement for a normative one, which is a depressingly common turn of events on the internet. it is simply true that all this stuff is getting built by corporations, which is not a value judgement as to that being good. as i said, we should be thinking about why corporations are beating out our academic institutions, because that's the starting point to fix them.
      - delusional 2y ago
        Opinions can vary on what is "interesting". Personally, I find LLMs extremely boring from a scientific standpoint. If they turn out to be a product, they could be extremely valuable, but if they fail in the marketplace, they don't offer any interesting insights into the nature of the universe of computer science. LLMs are a technology of engineering, not science. What is clear though is that none of that "interesting" AI stuff would exist without the mountains of research done by academic institutions. Google may have cemented "Attention" as a concept in LLM style AI, but the math to do that didn't come from nowhere. That math isn't thought of as a "technology" because it's not valuable without some product development. Academic institutions don't do that product development. That's precisely what makes you think they're being "beaten" OpenAI and DeepSeek are not beating academic institutions in any metric the academic institutions should care about. That's just true.
_lvbh 2y ago
By "Socialize the benefits" I mean open sourcing and preventing corporations from abusing it to suppress wages

OtomotO 2y ago

ONLY if it's Open Source! I am done paying taxes upon taxes upon taxes (not US based) and helping others becoming richer. It's totally fine for the government to add backing, but then it must be Open Source OR it must partly belong to the citizens! Quid pro quo!

dragonelite 2y ago
Yeah the research result and IP should belong to the public commons, if the initial researchers get a head start with exploiting the IP im fine with that.

PeterStuer 2y ago

We do massively back research and innovation with public money. But then we privatize the gains.