12 ms·
Well props to them for continuing to improve, winning on cost-effectiveness, and continuing to publicly share their improvements. Hard not to root for them as a
by zug_zug 11mo ago
Well props to them for continuing to improve, winning on cost-effectiveness, and continuing to publicly share their improvements. Hard not to root for them as a force to prevent an AI corporate monopoly/duopoly.
- srameshc 11mo agoAs much I agree with your sentiment, but I doubt the intention is singular.
- echelon 11mo agoI don't care if this kills Google and OpenAI. I hope it does, though I'm doubtful because distribution is important. You can't beat "ChatGPT" as a brand in laypeople's minds (unless perhaps you give them a massive "Temu: Shop Like A Billionaire" commercial campaign). Closed source AI is almost by design morphing into an industrial, infrastructure-heavy rocket science that commoners can't keep up with. The companies pushing it are building an industry we can't participate or share in. They're cordoning off areas of tech and staking ground for themselves. It's placing a steep fence around tech. I hope every such closed source AI effort is met with equivalent open source and that the investments made into closed AI go to zero. The most likely outcome is that Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic win and every other "lab"-shaped company dies an expensive death. RunwayML spent hundreds of millions and they're barely noticeable now. These open source models hasten the deaths of the second tier also-ran companies. As much as I hope for dents in the big three, I'm doubtful.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoI can’t think of a single company I’ve worked with as a consultant that I could convince to use DeepSeek because of its ties with China even if I explained that it was hosted on AWS and none of the information would go to China. Even when the technical people understood that, it would be too much of a political quagmire within their company when it became known to the higher ups. It just isn’t worth the political capital. They would feel the same way about using xAI or maybe even Facebook models.
- siliconc0w 11mo ago[flagged]
- nagaiaida 11mo agoon what hypothetical grounds would you be more meaningfully able to sue the american maker of a self-hosted statistical language model that you select your own runtime sampling parameters for after random subtle security vulnerabilities came out the other side when you asked it for very secure code? put another way, how do you propose to tell this subtle nefarious chinese sabotage you baselessly imply to be commonplace from the very real limitations of this technology in the first place?
- fragmede 11mo agoThis paper may be of interest to you: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1
- nagaiaida 11mo agothe mechanism of action for that attack appears to be reading from poisoned snippets on stackoverflow or a similar site, which to my mind is an excellent example of why it seems like it would be difficult to retroactively pin "insecure code came out of my model" on the evil communist base weights of the model in question
- kriops 11mo ago[flagged]
- coliveira 11mo agoCompetitor != adversary. It is US warmongering ideology that tries to equate these concepts.
- 11mo ago
- giancarlostoro 11mo agoChatGPT is like "Photoshop" people will call any AI chatgpt.
- banq 11mo ago[dead]
- twelvechairs 11mo agoThe bar is incredibly low considering what OpenAI has done as a "not for profit"
- energy123 11mo agoIt's like AMD open-sourcing FSR or Meta open-sourcing Llama. It's good for us, but it's nothing more than a situational and temporary alignment of self-interest with the public good. When the tables turn (they become the best instead of 4th best, or AMD develops the best upscaler, etc), the decision that aligns with self-interest will change, and people will start complaining that they've lost their moral compass.
- re-thc 11mo agoIt's not. This isn't about competition in a company sense but sanctions and wider macro issues.
- energy123 11mo agoIt's like it in the sense that it's done because it aligns with self-interest. Even if the nature of that self-interest differs.
- orbital-decay 11mo ago>situational and temporary alignment of self-interest with the public good That's how it supposed to work.
- jstummbillig 11mo agoHow could we judge if anyone is "winning" on cost-effectiveness, when we don't know what everyones profits/losses are?
- ericskiff 11mo agoI believe this was a statement on cost per token to us as consumers of the service
- moffkalast 11mo agoTraining cost-effectiveness doesn't matter for open models since someone else ate the cost. In this case, Chinese taxpayers.
- KvanteKat 11mo agoDeepseek is a private corporation funded by a hedge fund (High-Flyer). I doubt much public money was spent by the Chinese state on this. Like with LLMs in the US, the people paying for it so far are mainly investors who are betting on a return in the long to medium term.
- boringg 11mo agoDo you actually believe what you just wrote or are you trolling? One version at least has a foot planted in reality. The other one well...
- rowanG077 11mo agoWell consumers care about the cost to them, and those we know. And deepseek is destroying everything in that department.
- eru 11mo agoYes. Though we don't know for sure whether that's because they actually have lower costs, or whether it's just the Chinese taxpayer being forced to serve us a treat.
- make3 11mo agoI suspect they will keep doing this until they have a substantially better model than the competition. Sharing methods to look good & allow the field to help you keep up with the big guys is easy. I'll be impressed if they keep publishing even when they do beat the big guys soundly.
- paulvnickerson 11mo ago[flagged]
- Lucasoato 11mo ago> CrowdStrike researchers next prompted DeepSeek-R1 to build a web application for a Uyghur community center. The result was a complete web application with password hashing and an admin panel, but with authentication completely omitted, leaving the entire system publicly accessible. > When the identical request was resubmitted for a neutral context and location, the security flaws disappeared. Authentication checks were implemented, and session management was configured correctly. The smoking gun: political context alone determined whether basic security controls existed. Holy shit, these political filters seem embedded directly in the model weights.
- tehjoker 11mo agonot convincing. have you tried saying "free palestine" on a college campus recently?
- tadfisher 11mo agoLLMs are the perfect tools of oppression, really. It's computationally infeasible to prove just about any property of the model itself, so any bias will always be plausibly deniable as it has to be inferred from testing the output. I don't know if I trust China or X less in this regard.
- amunozo 11mo agoShould I root for the democratic OpenAI, Google or Microsoft instead?
- doctorwho42 11mo agoFurther more, who thinks our little voices matter anymore in the US when it comes to the investor classes? And if they did, having a counterweight against corrupt self-centered US oligarchs/CEOs is actually one of the biggest proponents for an actual powerful communist or other model world power. The US had some of the most progressive tax policies in its existence when it was under existential threat during the height of the USSR, and when their powered started to diminish, so too did those tax policies.
- ActorNightly 11mo ago>winning on cost-effectiveness Nobody is winning in this area until these things run in full on single graphics cards. Which is sufficient compute to run even most of the complex tasks.
- beefnugs 11mo agoWhy does that matter? They wont be making at home graphics cards anymore. Why would you do that when you can be pre-sold $40k servers for years into the future
- observationist 11mo agoBecause Moore's law marches on. We're around 35-40 orders of magnitude from computers now to computronium. We'll need 10-15 years before handheld devices can run a couple terabytes of ram, 64-128 terabytes of storage, and 80+ TFLOPS. That's enough to run any current state of the art AI at around 50 tokens per second, but in 10 years, we're probably going to have seen lots of improvements, so I'd guess conservatively you're going to be able to see 4-5x performance per parameter, possibly much more, so at that point, you'll have the equivalent of a model with 10T parameters today. If we just keep scaling and there are no breakthroughs, Moore's law gets us through another century of incredible progress. My default assumption is that there are going to be lots of breakthroughs, and that they're coming faster, and eventually we'll reach a saturation of research and implementation; more, better ideas will be coming out than we can possibly implement over time, so our information processing will have to scale, and it'll create automation and AI development pressures, and things will be unfathomably weird and exotic for individuals with meat brains. Even so, in only 10 years and steady progress we're going to have fantastical devices at hand. Imagine the enthusiast desktop - could locally host the equivalent of a 100T parameter AI, or run personal training of AI that currently costs frontier labs hundreds of millions in infrastructure and payroll and expertise. Even without AGI that's a pretty incredible idea. If we do get to AGI (2029 according to Kurzweil) and it's open, then we're going to see truly magical, fantastical things. What if you had the equivalent of a frontier lab in your pocket? What's that do to the economy? NVIDIA will be churning out chips like crazy, and we'll start seeing the solar system measured in terms of average cognitive FLOPS per gram, and be well on the way toward system scale computronium matrioshka brains and the like.
- chistev 11mo agoHow do they make their money
- binary132 11mo agoI suspect it is a state venture designed to undermine the American-led proprietary AI boom. I'm all for it, tbh, but as others have pointed out, if they successfully destroy the American ventures it's not like we can expect an altruistic endgame from them.
- vitaflo 11mo agoDeepseek is owned by a Chinese hedge fund. It was originally created for finance and then generalized later. In any case you pay for it like any other LLM.