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

101–110 of 246 posts

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

#101

Post by ben_w »

pjc50 wrote: post #83
ipnon wrote: post #10

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

The last time I was really excited by tech was in the 90s, when game graphics improved spectacularly over a period of a few years, from Wolfenstein in 1992 to Half-Life in 1998. Along the way people invented the 3D GPU: https://fabiensanglard.net/3dfx_sst1/ But AI? To me, AI means the replacement of the human internet with doppelgangers eroding the possibility of human connection.

> To me, AI means the replacement of the human internet with doppelgangers eroding the possibility of human connection.

I get where you're coming from, and I've minimised having my face online in order to limit being doppelganged; but I think the destruction of real human connection may have happened when Facebook et al switched from "get more users" to "be addictive so the users stay on our site longer" (2012? Not sure).

Turned every user's relationships a little bit more parasocial, a little less real.

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

#102

Post by jimjimwii »

mythz wrote: post #60
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.

This nitpicking is pointless. DeepSeek's gifts to the world of its open weights, public research and OSS code of its SOTA models are all any reasonable person should expect given no organization is going to release their dataset and open themselves up to criticism and legal exposure. You shouldn't expect to any to see datasets behind any SOTA models until they're able to be synthetically generated from larger models.…

Terminology exists for a reason. Doubly so for well-established terms of art that pertain to licensing and contract law.

They could have used "open wights" which would have conveyed the company's desired intent just as well as "open source", but without the ambiguity. They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.

I applaud and thank deepseek for opening their weights, but i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term. I and others like me will continue to raise this point as long as we are active in this field, so expect to see this criticism for decades.

Hopefully one of these companies losses a lawsuit due to these shenanigans. Perhaps then they wouldn't misuse these terms so brazenly.

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

#103

Post by VMG »

pjc50 wrote: post #83
ipnon wrote: post #10

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

The last time I was really excited by tech was in the 90s, when game graphics improved spectacularly over a period of a few years, from Wolfenstein in 1992 to Half-Life in 1998. Along the way people invented the 3D GPU: https://fabiensanglard.net/3dfx_sst1/ But AI? To me, AI means the replacement of the human internet with doppelgangers eroding the possibility of human connection.

Erosion of human connection over the internet which may be a good thing

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

#104

Post by michaelt »

jackjeff wrote: post #49
papichulo2023 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some people believe they can dodge copyright issues so long as they have enough indirection in their training pipeline.

You take a terabyte of pirated college physics textbooks and train a model that can pose and answer physics 101 problems.

Then a separate, "independent" team uses that model to generate a terabyte of new, synthetic physics 101 problems and solutions, and releases this dataset as "public domain".

Then a third "independent" team uses that synthetic dataset to train a model.

The theory is this forms a sort of legal sieve. Pass the knowledge through a grid with a million fact-sized holes and with enough shaking, the knowledge falls through but the copyright doesn't.

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

#105

Post by prettyStandard »

catmanjan wrote: post #81
kaiwen1 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. My memory of the advent of the WWW was a sidebar in PC Magazine in Nov 1993 with an FTP link to download the NCSA Mosaic browser. It was a wow! moment to visit the few sites that existed. But nothing like this. What we’re seeing now is generating vastly more interest and excitement. It’s more akin to the 1999 dotcom bubble, but with far more impact and reach.

>far more impact and reach. Absurd, AI has had zero impact in the everyday life of most of the population of Earth, in fact the biggest impact has been upon the wallets of speculators

Zero impact?

AI is involved in things from writing laws to taking drive through orders.

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

#106

Post by dgroshev »

jampekka wrote: post #29
nine_k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jurisprudence, I hope! A huge heap of detailed cases, formal codes, decisions made and explained in detail, commented, overturned, etc. Especially civil cases. Also, probably, medicine, especially diagnostic. Large amounts of well-documented cases, a fair amount of repeatability, apparently non-random mechanisms behind, so statistical models should actually detect useful correlations. Can use more formalized tokens f…

A friend of mine just defended his law PhD and in the introductory lectio said that (even) current LLMs would likely give better verdicts than human judges. Law isn't really a cognitively such demanding task as walking a dog or waiting tables.

This is nonsense though. What does "better" mean in this case? A judge is not a black box with an input (the case) and an output (the verdict), the entire point of having a judge is to have empathy, conscience, and personal responsibility built into the system.

It's a blind spot that too many people have because we take those qualities for granted. LLMs unbundle them, so we need to start recognising the inherent value of humans, fast. I wrote a few words about it here: https://dgroshev.com/blog/feel-bad/

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

#107

Post by jillesvangurp »

nine_k wrote: post #11
drakenot wrote: post #6

What are some other domains outside of Math and Coding that would be suitable for RL with automated verification?

Jurisprudence, I hope! A huge heap of detailed cases, formal codes, decisions made and explained in detail, commented, overturned, etc. Especially civil cases. Also, probably, medicine, especially diagnostic. Large amounts of well-documented cases, a fair amount of repeatability, apparently non-random mechanisms behind, so statistical models should actually detect useful correlations. Can use more formalized tokens f…

There's definitely a lot of wiggle room for lawyers and doctors to up their game. People cannot keep up with all the stuff that's published. There's simply too much of it. Doctors only read a fraction of what is published. Lawyers have to be aware of orders of magnitude more information than is humanly possible.

LLMs allow them to take some short cuts here. Even something like perplexity that can help you dig out relevant source material is extremely helpful. You still have to cross check what it digs out.

The mistake people make is confusing knowledge with reasoning when evaluating LLMs. Perplexity is useful because it can use reasoning to screen sources with knowledge; not because it has perfect recollection of what's in those sources. There's a subtle difference. It's much better at summarizing and far less likely to hallucinate than it is when it wouldn't base its answers on the results of a search. Like chat gpt used to do (they've gotten better at this too).

For lawyers and medical professionals this means that they have all the best knowledge easily accessible without having to read and memorize all of it. I know some lawyer types that are really good at scrabble, remembering trivia, etc. That's a side effect of the type of work they do: which is mostly just reading and scanning through massive amounts of text so that they can recall enough information to know where to look. Doctors have to do similar things with medical texts.

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

#108

Post by janstice »

drakenot wrote: post #6

What are some other domains outside of Math and Coding that would be suitable for RL with automated verification?

Management consulting - I expect less than 20% of what a random 24 year old in a suit that you pay $3000 per day produces is actually specific to your business problem, and the rest is formulaic.

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

#109

Post by matwood »

pjc50 wrote: post #83
ipnon wrote: post #10

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

The last time I was really excited by tech was in the 90s, when game graphics improved spectacularly over a period of a few years, from Wolfenstein in 1992 to Half-Life in 1998. Along the way people invented the 3D GPU: https://fabiensanglard.net/3dfx_sst1/ But AI? To me, AI means the replacement of the human internet with doppelgangers eroding the possibility of human connection.

That was an exciting time, but I didn't think of it happening over a few years. IMO there was a hard line that was basically pre and post Voodoo cards (with the help of glQuake).

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

#110

Post by mythz »

jimjimwii wrote: post #102
mythz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This nitpicking is pointless. DeepSeek's gifts to the world of its open weights, public research and OSS code of its SOTA models are all any reasonable person should expect given no organization is going to release their dataset and open themselves up to criticism and legal exposure. You shouldn't expect to any to see datasets behind any SOTA models until they're able to be synthetically generated from larger models.…

Terminology exists for a reason. Doubly so for well-established terms of art that pertain to licensing and contract law. They could have used "open wights" which would have conveyed the company's desired intent just as well as "open source", but without the ambiguity. They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead. I applaud and thank deepseek for opening their weights, but i absolutely condemn the…

> i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term

This is the kind of inconsequential nitpicking diatribe I'm referring to. When has "open data" ever meant Open Source?

> They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.

Their model weights as well as their repositories containing their technical papers and any source code are published under an OSS MIT license, which is the reason why initiatives like this looking to reproduce R1 are even possible.

But no, we have to waste space in every open model release complaining that they must be condemned for continuing to use the same label the rest of the industry uses to describe their open models which are released under an OSS License as Open Source - instead of using whatever preferred unused label you want them to use.

Post reply on HN