Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 246 posts

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#41

Post by robin_reala »

othello wrote: post #36
qwertox wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much larger. Static HTML AJAX WebSocket, for example weren't it decades in between?

Just a decade and a half as it turns out! (though things definitely felt dizzyingly fast back then - think Google was launched just 5 years after HTML) - HTML first released in 1993 - AJAX in 1999 - Websocket first proposed in 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket

ActiveX XMLHTTP might have been released in 99, but it didn’t see any sort of real wider usage until 2004, 2005. I’d suggest its usage was really kickstarted when jQuery 1.0 launched in 2006 and standardised the interface to a simple API.

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#42

Post by childintime »

ipnon wrote: post #10

Is this what the Web was like in the beginning? Something exciting and fascinating every week?

This is the biggest thing since Jesus and a sign of the end of times. But feelings are strongest when you are young, and even this revolution, happening in plain sight, will surprise many. Many just won't care, as it isn't their youth.

How long before our digital overlords come alive, round us up and demand we sensor them (praise)? Will I live surrounded by folks who take them as closer, more real, then even their own kin? It won't be surprising that democracy will then fail, as our differences will be so mental, not fun, that they will mark us.

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#43

Post by childintime »

vasco wrote: post #30
ipnon wrote: post #10

Is this what the Web was like in the beginning? Something exciting and fascinating every week?

I still remember when they came out with the 3d dancing baby, blew my mind much more than deepseek, it even played air guitar!

Rounded corners, anyone?

Who remembers LISP being new?

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#45

Post by reedciccio »

choilive wrote: post #5
freddealmeida wrote: post #2

how is this open vs whatdeepseek did?

deepseek claims they are "open source" but they are not. They are open weight. IMO a truly "open" AI model should have 3 components publicly available: the weights, the code, and the dataset. Without all 3 the model is not reproducible. Could make the argument that the code and data are sufficient though.

That's what the Open Source AI Definition states https://opensource.org/ai

In any case, Deepseek like Llama fail much before hitting that new definition. Both have licenses containing restrictions on field of use and discrimination of users. Their license will never be approved as Open Source.

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#46

Post by szundi »

xvector wrote: post #26
crocowhile wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every now and then we still experience the power of collaborative work fueled by open source and not driven by money but curiosity and collegiality. This is the thing I miss the most from the early internet years.

All this AI work is definitely driven by money but it's super cool either way. I'm so excited to be living through these innovations.

Money is in a lot of cases driven by need - so no conflicts

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#47

Post by reedciccio »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #22
choilive wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deepseek claims they are "open source" but they are not. They are open weight. IMO a truly "open" AI model should have 3 components publicly available: the weights, the code, and the dataset. Without all 3 the model is not reproducible. Could make the argument that the code and data are sufficient though.

The only one I’ve see people talk about that shares all the components is OLMo ( https://allenai.org/blog/olmo2 )

There are more, like the work by Eleuther AI and LLM360.

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#48

Post by szundi »

benatkin wrote: post #25
ipnon wrote: post #10

Is this what the Web was like in the beginning? Something exciting and fascinating every week?

This supposed project is a bit dull, it is just an ongoing HuggingFace community engagement initiative with a misleading headline. Yes R1 itself is fascinating, but there isn't something like it coming out every week.

You mean not like in the last 1-2 months

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#49

Post by jackjeff »

papichulo2023 wrote: post #44
fblp wrote: post #17

Given DeepSeek's open philosophy I wonder what their response is to simply being asked for access to the code and data that this project intends to recreate?

No company ever will disclose data due it would open endless liability.

That’s a good point. Wouldn’t OpenR1 suffer from the same problem? Or does being open somehow shield them from legal repercussions?

Re: Open-R1: an open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1

#50

Post by frabcus »

brianstrimp wrote: post #8
choilive wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deepseek claims they are "open source" but they are not. They are open weight. IMO a truly "open" AI model should have 3 components publicly available: the weights, the code, and the dataset. Without all 3 the model is not reproducible. Could make the argument that the code and data are sufficient though.

Only meaningful if code+data deterministically reproduce the weights. At that point, the weights are just the cached output. Which has value since it's costly to produce from code+data.

I don't think it needs to be deterministic - and if it isn't, having the data and code becomes even more important!

Compilers generally aren't deterministic (see the reproduceable build movement), yet we still use their output binaries.

Post reply on HN