21–30 of 37 posts
Any idea why I lost interest in deep seek? I used it and grok3 a whole bunch when they first came out but now I’ve fallen back to Claude for everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes that’s a pretty giant accusation, especially given they’re buying boatloads of GPUs and have previous versions as well (it’s not like they’re starting with 3).
1) Grok-2 was akin to GPT-3.5 2) Grok-3 comes out a month after DeepSeek R1 was open sourced. I think Grok-3 is DeepSeek R1 with some added params and about a month of training on the giant cluster, possibly a bit of in-house secret sauce added to the model or training methodology. What are the chances that XAI just happened to have a thinking model close to as good as revolutionary DeepSeek but happened to launch it…
Extremely, extremely good. That was in fact the real point of the deepseek paper - it was extremely cheap to turn a frontier(ish?) model into a reasoning model. There is nothing suspicious about this timeline from an ML Ops point of view.
In fact DeepSeek themselves in a sort of victory lap released six OTHER models from other providers finetuned with reasoning as part of the initial drop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correlation isn't causation, I hate to say this, but here's really applicable. Facebook aka Meta has always been very opensource. Let's not talk about the license though. :) Why do you imply malice in OSS companies? Or for profit companies opensourcing their models and sourcecode?
Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny. I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if i…
Any idea why I lost interest in deep seek? I used it and grok3 a whole bunch when they first came out but now I’ve fallen back to Claude for everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is decidedly not an "OSS company" no matter how much they put out.
In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Even companies centered around open source like Gitlab are usually generate most of their revenue of proprietary products or use liceses like BSL.
Okay then. Fine by me.
> Gitlab
Perfect example. They have OSS offerings. They are not an OSS _company_.
This also serves to exclude the hundreds of VC-backed "totally open source 100% not going to enshittify this when our investors come asking for returns". Which, again, I'm fine with.
The business model of the purist OSS company is not one that's been found to be terribly successful. Nevertheless, it _is_ one which has a sort of moral high ground at least. I would prefer to leave definitions as is so as to keep that distinction (of having the moral high ground) crystal clear.
Does that make sense?
DeepSeek R1 is by far the best at writing prose of any model, including Grok-3, GPT-4o, o1-pro, o3, claude, etc. Paste in a snippet from a book and ask the model to continue the story in the style of the snippet. It's surprising how bad most of the models are. Grok-3 comes in a close second, likely because it is actually DeepSeek R1 with a few mods behind the scenes.
DS3: 5M training run Grok3: 400M training run
for 2% difference in the benchmarks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correlation isn't causation, I hate to say this, but here's really applicable. Facebook aka Meta has always been very opensource. Let's not talk about the license though. :) Why do you imply malice in OSS companies? Or for profit companies opensourcing their models and sourcecode?
Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny. I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny. I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if i…
Companies basically don't have fiduciary duties to shareholders. Also, Zuck has all the votes and can do whatever he wants.
Not jus being impressed that every paper coming out is SOTA, but also leads the way in being Open-Source in the pure definition of OSS, even with permissible licensing. Let's not confuse the company with the country by over-fitting a narrative. Popular media is reenforcing hatred or anything that sponsors them, especially to weaker groups. Less repercussions and more clicks/money to be made I guess. While Politicians…
> Let's not confuse the company with the country What's wrong with China? They're wonderful in the OSS ecosystem.
It's very difficult to be truly unbiased and neutral and it's not my goal, I just think it's a common thought, that needs to be challenged. To associate products/results of scientists, quants, engineers and companies they are employed with an entire Nation is inherently simplistic.
In that case, why did the CIA/NSA develop TOR and made it OSS? If the governments in the UK/France/Turkey are so brutally against encryption, why does the USA release safe encryption products?
If the world were absolute, we would absolutely be doomed and I hope to be part of a world, where freedom of thought, responsibility of each, constructive cooperation and a mesh of companies can work and produce value from and with each other permissionlessly. A world where Copyright/Patents are not needed anymore, because a stronger framework supports the individual contributor and also companies. Leftist, Right and Centrists views how an economy should look like are flawed, because they introduce idealogies to a mathematical non-linear partially closed but mostly open system.
Every idealistic concept shouldn't be believed, but explored. To hate one system over another one is also flawed, because it doesn't produce data and forces hypothesis testing without consequentially following conclusions. Economy is too complex for a man to design. It shouldn't be put into a canvas of restricted operations, but circuits would need to be developed locally. If we empower small communities and allow changes to be made quicker with less bureaucracy, this seemingly grand introduction of chaos leads to emergence of a larger stability of the whole. We are soo far away from that man..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's not confuse the company with the country What's wrong with China? They're wonderful in the OSS ecosystem.
It varies on a company to company basis. BOOX, for instance, are notorious GPL violators. There's also significant alpha in releasing open weights models. You get to slow down the market leaders to make sure they don't have runaway success. It reduces moats, slows funding, creates a wealth of competition, reduces margin. It's a really smart move if you want to make sure there's a future where you can compete with Goo…
But believing a man could achieve such a feat alone is inspiring to be frank.