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

Notes on DeepSeek

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#21

Post by gbraad »

adampunk wrote: post #18
gbraad wrote: post #12

Not sure what I read, but sounded like a lunch meeting description; felt void of actual information, with the restaurant replaced by the office. I am in China and can tell it is either Kimi, DeepSeek or Claude (proxied or actually deepseek/fake). The bigger push for the general public died down a lot since last year; kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messag…

It’s a puff piece written by someone who didn’t know (or didn’t care) they were being managed.

"Like this, read my blog" — said DeepSeek

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#22

Post by ImprobableTruth »

boristsr wrote: post #10
seydor wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with distillation? Wasn't GPT a distillation of the world's internet? That's how technology levels proceed, by recursively consuming the previous ones.

It's absolutely mind boggling to see claims of model distillation being theft, a class of attack, and all sorts of claims all the while Meta is in court for copyright violation, anthropic has had to settle a case with authors. With distillation "attacks" at least they paid API fees.

Anthropic had to settle with authors because they literally pirated books! Their behavior regarding distillation is genuinely beyond parody.

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#24

Post by genewitch »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #11
bel8 wrote: post #5

From the notes, they seem humble and empathic. We're lucky to have China imposing competiton to the western AI megacorps. If it wasn't for China, I would probably have to spend $100/mo on AI instead of $10 like I do currently while using DeepSeek and MiMo (opencode Go plan). And while I could do so comfortably, I feel for those who can't. It must feel incredibly isolating to only watch others have access to expensive…

Yep. After yesterday's moves around "Fable 5" even twice as much. We've had a taste, and damned if I'm going to have the "means of production" snatched from me already?

approximately how many months/years until there are "illegal models"?

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#25

Post by genewitch »

gbraad wrote: post #12

Not sure what I read, but sounded like a lunch meeting description; felt void of actual information, with the restaurant replaced by the office. I am in China and can tell it is either Kimi, DeepSeek or Claude (proxied or actually deepseek/fake). The bigger push for the general public died down a lot since last year; kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messag…

> kids were pushed to use AI for homework, now it is disallowed and frowned upon. In short mixed messaging.

in the early 2000s in california universities you'd get marked down for citing wikipedia. so the good souls told everyone "see the number in brackets[2] after what you're trying to cite the article for? just click that then click the archive.org or whatever link there, then cite that."

Now? i think wiki is considered a valid source? or has it flopped back to being "unreliable"?

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#26

Post by _aavaa_ »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #19
boristsr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely mind boggling to see claims of model distillation being theft, a class of attack, and all sorts of claims all the while Meta is in court for copyright violation, anthropic has had to settle a case with authors. With distillation "attacks" at least they paid API fees.

There are 2 things worth separating. 1) China distills and is therefore morally bad. As you rightly point out, that's not a great argument. 2) China distills and is therefore possibly not that competent. I think that makes sense. If they only catch up to the frontier through distillation then 1) Their model will never be as good as the model they are distilling from. 2) They will never reach the frontier - they need…

This is literally a repeat of the whole “China only make low quality cheap stuff” argument.

“All they do is copy.”

And now, oops they are world leaders in EVs, batteries, solar, drones, just to name a few on the biggest consumer facing things.

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#27

Post by surgical_fire »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #3

"As a whole, China seems to treat AI as just another technology, rather than as some kind of singularity moment." This is a refreshing perspective.

Especially here on HN, where AI anxiety (especially amongst those that are really nervous that it needs to succeed) is very, very tiresome.

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#28

Post by alecco »

bel8 wrote: post #5

From the notes, they seem humble and empathic. We're lucky to have China imposing competiton to the western AI megacorps. If it wasn't for China, I would probably have to spend $100/mo on AI instead of $10 like I do currently while using DeepSeek and MiMo (opencode Go plan). And while I could do so comfortably, I feel for those who can't. It must feel incredibly isolating to only watch others have access to expensive…

> We're lucky to have China imposing competiton to the western AI megacorps.

The second they get a hold of the market, Chinese Big Tech will be as bad or worse than US Big Tech.

We're lucky to have DeepSeek.

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#29

Post by Lerc »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #19
boristsr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely mind boggling to see claims of model distillation being theft, a class of attack, and all sorts of claims all the while Meta is in court for copyright violation, anthropic has had to settle a case with authors. With distillation "attacks" at least they paid API fees.

There are 2 things worth separating. 1) China distills and is therefore morally bad. As you rightly point out, that's not a great argument. 2) China distills and is therefore possibly not that competent. I think that makes sense. If they only catch up to the frontier through distillation then 1) Their model will never be as good as the model they are distilling from. 2) They will never reach the frontier - they need…

>2) China distills and is therefore possibly not that competent.

I think deepseek at least has done enough innovative work that you could grant them a baseline of competency.

In general, there are enough papers coming out of China to suggest that there are quite a few people there who know what they are doing.

Re: Notes on DeepSeek

#30

Post by surgical_fire »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #19
boristsr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely mind boggling to see claims of model distillation being theft, a class of attack, and all sorts of claims all the while Meta is in court for copyright violation, anthropic has had to settle a case with authors. With distillation "attacks" at least they paid API fees.

There are 2 things worth separating. 1) China distills and is therefore morally bad. As you rightly point out, that's not a great argument. 2) China distills and is therefore possibly not that competent. I think that makes sense. If they only catch up to the frontier through distillation then 1) Their model will never be as good as the model they are distilling from. 2) They will never reach the frontier - they need…

> China distills and is therefore possibly not that competent.

I heard that argument more than one year ago, when chain of thought and reasoning cycles started to be hudden to protect against distillation.

Meanwhile, models as DeepSeek and MiMo are nothing short of excellent nowadays.

Ever since I switched away from OpenAI to DeepSeek I never felt the need to go back.

Post reply on HN