An analysis of DeepSeek's R1-Zero and R1

Post by baq » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 8:22 AM UTC

boroboro4 wrote: post #154

vidarh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can call up Nvidia and order $10B worth of GPUs and have them delivered the next week Nvidia sold $14.5 billion of datacenter hardware in the third quarter of their fiscal 2024 and that led to severe supply constraints, with estimate lead times for H100's up to 52 weeks some places, so no you can't, as that $14.5 billion was clearly capped by their ability to supply, not demand. You're right, though, that Groq…

Groq chips have 230 mb of sram memory. Good luck running 670B model on those chips, even without supply constraints.

Post by baq » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 8:23 AM UTC

panabee wrote: post #133

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI, Meta, AWS, AMD, and others have long attempted to eliminate the Nvidia tax, yet failed. Gemini / Google runs and trains on TPUs. You have no incentive to infer on AMD if you need to buy a massive Nvidia cluster to train.

Google was omitted because they own the hardware and the models, but in retrospect, they represent a proof point nearly as compelling as OpenAI. Thanks for the comment. Google has leading models operating on leading hardware, backed by sophisticated tech talent who could facilitate migrations, yet Google still cannot leap over the CUDA moat and capture meaningful inference market share. Yes, training plays a crucial…

Post by panloss125 » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 8:54 AM UTC

mrbungie wrote: post #188

stale2002 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not complete invulnerability. Instead, it is merely accepting that these methods might increase costs, like a little bit, but they don't cause the whole thing to explode. The idea that a couple bad faith actions can destroy a 100 billion dollar company, is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Sure, bad actors can do a little damage. Just like bad actors can do DDoS attempts against Google…

Grandparent mentioned "we", I guess they refer to a full class of "black hats" avoiding bad faith scraping that eventually could amass to a relatively effective volume of poisoned sites and/or feedback to the model. Obviously a singular poisoned site will never make a difference in a dataset of billions and billions of tokens, much less destroy a 100bn company. That's a straw man, and I think people arguing about poi…

Post by octacat » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 10:22 AM UTC

nogridbag wrote: post #176

octacat wrote: post #168

I think deepseek accidentally also killed google for me, not just chatgpt. Because of the visible reasoning part.

From what I read elsewhere (random reddit comment), the visible reasoning is just "for show" and isn't the process deepseek used to arrive at the result. But if the reasoning has value, I guess it doesn't matter even if it's fake.

Post by docfort » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:20 PM UTC

gsam wrote: post #113

optimalsolver wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can o3 write a symphony? Seriously though, I'd like to hear suggestions on how to automatically evaluate an AI model's creativity, no humans in the loop.

In my view there's two modes of creativity: 1. That two distant topics or ideas are actually much more closely related. The creative sees one example of an idea and applies it to a discipline that nobody expects. In theory, reduction of the maximally distant can probably be measured with a tangible metric. 2. Discovery of ideas that are even more maximally distant. Pushing the edge, and this can be done by pure searc…