371–380 of 393 posts
DeepSeek is, as I feel currently, the sole AI company which is actually trying to innovate rather than top mere benchmarks. Others like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are mostly just competeing with each rather than keep innovating around the clock.
DeepSeek continues to not only push the boundaries but also publish these incredible papers explaining how they achieved their gains - something the American labs no longer do unfortunately. Chinese labs are doing the most interesting work in AI right now.
If American labs aren't publishing, it doesn't mean they aren't doing even more interesting work.
I genuinely wonder how it feels to be working your whole life, actual flesh and blood and heart and mind pouring 40 to make something that is a dead-end on the tree of human progress because it’s miserly masters are terrified of sharing knowledge.
Days and nights spent playing pretend human pioneer, when you are a lunatic on an island building towers of coconuts.
DeepSeek continues to not only push the boundaries but also publish these incredible papers explaining how they achieved their gains - something the American labs no longer do unfortunately. Chinese labs are doing the most interesting work in AI right now.
They push the boundaries, alright. Of obtaining the results of work without doing the work themselves, which I hate to say it but this is classic Chinese machiavellianist business behavior: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/24/anthropic-alibaba-distillati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's pretty silly to use as a measure of what they do internally
It's pretty representative of what they do internally
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty representative of what they do internally
You know this from? Any sources? I'd love to learn more because it would be one of the very few industries that still write assembly by hand extensively enough to warrant hiring experts on just that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DeepSeek is, as I feel currently, the sole AI company which is actually trying to innovate rather than top mere benchmarks. I'd also include the other Chinese labs like Moonshot (behind Kimi) and Z.ai (behind GLM). They are innovating and continue openly sharing their research to the public. I believe the founder of Moonshot even shared 40 minute video on Twitter where he goes through techniques that powers Kimi.
Isn't GLM-5.2 mostly DeepSeek V3 architecture? More and more I suspect Z.ai just has deeper pockets and access to the Claude traces while DeepSeek is punching way above their class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you elaborate? the original mission was "advance digital intelligence in a way that benefits all of humanity" I don't see an inconsistency. money is pragmatic, the mission needs money
Every company on the face of the earth has a mission statement involving some bs goal that sounds altruistic. For a good example look at googles mission statement. The real mission statement for most companies is to make as much money as possible.
OpenAI might have the same flaw, but you need to demonstrate it, not just assume it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Young blood, allow me to explain. I said open source is derivative to capitalism. Meaning open source cannot exist without capitalism. I never said they oppose each other. Second I said you need to follow the money trail. Money given to people who work on open source comes from non-open source places.
> I never said they oppose each other. Are you not implying below, with your words, that working exclusively on open source cannot bring money? > If they exclusively work on open source stuff where are they getting money from to survive? You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something e…
No I am implying that it in itself does not generate money because it is given away freely. Open source can draw donations but that is not part of a transaction and the source of that money is from incentivized labor.
> You seem to imply that open source is incompatible with making money. You seem to believe that if someone is making money they are not doing "exclusively open source" but something else in addition to open source.
Usually yes but not necessarily. They may exclusively do open source but then in this case they must be supported by some kind of monetary source. That monetary source will be a for profit incentive. For example: donations. Donation money must be generated by for profit ventures. Or salary money paid by companies for employees to work on open source. That salary money is generated from for profit ventures.
> Money spent on coffee comes from non-coffee places, mostly. Does that mean one cannot make money exclusively selling coffee?
Dude. You’re missing the point and making a wrong analogy. It is not about where the money comes from but whether a transaction occurred. When you sell coffee you make a transaction. When you give away software… no transaction occurs. You lose time effort and money for nothing in return. Thus the effort must logically be supported by something else. I am exclusively talking about a logistical issue with a logistical consequence. That’s it.
> That I can agree with. It is the exaggeration and dogmatism that is untrue.
Where did I exaggerate or dogmatize anything? I am talking about a logistical reality and you’re getting emotionally worked up over it. Don’t fucking accuse me of shit I didn’t do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chinese labs are also still behind, so they’re incentivized to collaborate and have no reason to do it in private. I suspect their tune will change if they ever take the lead..
The question is also what game they're playing. Deepseek came out of a hedge fund. I think it's no coincidence that their publications tend to have a large impact on AI stock prices. Destroying the growth story of overvalued stocks is an interesting investment strategy. It's not even new. Shortsellers understandably get terrible rep from execs, but their actions are more often in the public interest than you'd think.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not population only logic, but it does underscore that it is silly to expect the United States to inevitably be ahead. As for the rest of it: https://youtu.be/74DAI2hr9Kk?t=159
I dont necessarily disagree with you on your other points, but the population argument sort of shows a lack of understanding of how China works. It’s not guaranteed at all that they will ever overtake the US.
It's not in the interests of the vast majority of either country to engage in conflict. American citizens should therefore resist the professed bellicosity of leaders who will never see any consequences, on a battlefield or otherwise. The average American will not be so lucky. Chinese innovation in a world of cooperation need not be less beneficial to Americans than the reverse.