OpenAI says it has evidence DeepSeek used its model to train competitor

Post by dtquad » Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #19

It's reasonably likely that a lot of people linked to the federal government want to ban DeepSeek. You can tell it's being presented away from "they gave us a free set of weights" and towards "they destroyed $1T of shareholder value." (By revealing that Microsoft et al. paid way too much to OpenAI et al. for technology that was actually easy to reinvent.)

Post by barnabee » Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 4:35 PM UTC

api wrote: post #235

semking wrote: post #21

This is absolutely hilarious! :) ClosedAI scraped human content without asking and they explained why this was acceptable... but when the outputs of their training corpus is scraped, it is THEIR dataset and this is NOT acceptable! Oh, the irony! :D I shared a few screenshots of DeepSeek answering using ChatGPT's output in yesterday's article! https://semking.com/deepseek-china-ai-model-breakthrough-sec...

So far the whole business model of Silicon Valley since social media has been to monetize other peoples' content given out for free. The whole empire is built on this. I wonder if this is going to come to an end through a combination of social media fatigue, social media fragmentation, and open source LLMs just giving it all back to us for free. LLMs are analogous to a "JPEG for ideas" so they're just lossy compressi…

Post by hujun » Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 4:38 PM UTC

bilekas wrote: post #95

> “It’s also extremely hard to rally a big talented research team to charge a new hill in the fog together,” he added. “This is the key to driving progress forward.” Well I think DeepSeek releasing it open source and on an MIT license will rally the big talent. The open sourcing of a new technology has always driven progress in the past. The last paragraph too is where OpenAi seems to be focusing their efforts.. > we…

Post by gruez » Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 4:41 PM UTC

semking wrote: post #206

gruez wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The picture at the end showing deepseek's privacy policy and being concerned that it's "a security risk" is hilarious[1]. Basically every B2C company collects this sort of information[2], and is far less intrusive than what social networks collect[3]. But because it's Chinese and at the risk of overtaking Western companies, people are suddenly worried about device information and IP addresses? [1] https://semking.com…

One of my core followers named Bruno basically said the same thing under my Linkedin post yesterday: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/organic-growth_deepseek-the-o... I welcome friction, so I'll be blunt: I disagree with you, not because what you are saying is wrong but because you only consider systematic data collection. That's not the issue here. There's a difference between democracies like the United States or Eur…

Post by tokioyoyo » Wed, Jan 29, 2025, 4:42 PM UTC

dtquad wrote: post #261

whatshisface wrote: post #19

It's reasonably likely that a lot of people linked to the federal government want to ban DeepSeek. You can tell it's being presented away from "they gave us a free set of weights" and towards "they destroyed $1T of shareholder value." (By revealing that Microsoft et al. paid way too much to OpenAI et al. for technology that was actually easy to reinvent.)

>It's reasonably likely that a lot of people linked to the federal government want to ban DeepSeek. It took them years and years to move forward with the ban ok Tiktok and it still hasn't been banned yet. There is no way they are going to ban some MIT-licensed weights. >"they destroyed $1T of shareholder value." The market has largely recovered.