Well props to them for continuing to improve, winning on cost-effectiveness, and continuing to publicly share their improvements. Hard not to root for them as a force to prevent an AI corporate monopoly/duopoly.
How do they make their money
DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
401–410 of 485 posts
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
AirBnB is all in on DeepSeek and Qwen. https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/airbnb-picks-alibabas-qwen...
It's a customer service bot? And Airbnb is a vacation home booking site. It's pretty inconsequential
Airbnb has ~$12 bn annual revenue, and is a counterexample to the idea that no companies can be "convinced to use DeepSeek".
The fact that it's customer service means it's dealing with text entered by customers, which has privacy and other consequences.
So no, it's not "pretty inconsequential". Many more companies fit a profile like that than whatever arbitrary criteria you might have in mind for "consequential".
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's just one factor though. Another is what hardware you can actually run things on. DeepSeek and Qwen will function on cheap GPUs that other models will simply choke on. What's cheap nowdays? I'm out of the loop. Does anything ever run on integrated AMD that is Ryzen AI that comes in framework motherboards? Is under 1k americans cheap?
Not really in the loop either, but when Deepseek R1 was released, I sumbled upon this YouTube channel [1] that made local AI PC builds in the 1000-2000$ range. But he doesn't always use GPUs, maybe the cheaper builds were CPU plus a lot of RAM, I don't remember. [1] https://youtube.com/@digitalspaceport?si=NrZL7MNu80vvAshx
'lots of RAM' got expensive lately -_-
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
People say that, but everyone, including enterprises, are constantly buying Chinese tech one way or another because of cost/quality ratio. There’s a tipping point in any excel file where risks don’t make sense, if the cost is 20x for the same quality. Of course you’ll always have exceptions (government, military and etc.), but for private, winner will take it all.
The xenaphobia is still very much there. Chinese tech is sanitized through Taiwanese middlemen (Foxconn, Asus, Acer etc). If you try to use Chinese tech or funding directly you will have a lot of pushback from VCs, financial institutions and business partners. China is the boogieman
it is many things, but not xenophobia.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except domestic alternatives to the tech companies you listed were not driven out by them, they still exist today with substantial market share. American tech dominance elsewhere has more to do a lack of competition, and when competition does exist they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments. So your counter narrative is false here.
> American tech dominance elsewhere has more to do a lack of competition If that's true, why doesn't America compete on this front against China? > they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments So when the US had the policy advantage over the EU it was just the market working, but when China has the policy advantage over the US it suddenly becomes unfair?
>> they're more often than not held at a disadvantage by domestic governments
I think you misunderstood this. When domestic competitor arise against American tech, the domestic government tends to explicitly favour those competitor against American tech, placing the latter at an disadvantage.
You can see India or China or Korea or SEA where they have their own favored food delivery apps and internet services. Even in the EU the local LLM companies like Mistral are favored by local businesses for integration over OpenAI. Clearly American tech hasn't actually displaced serious domestic competitors, so the rare earths comparison fails when the USA in contrast is far more willing to let local businesses fail.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#406It's awesome that stuff like this is open source, but even if you have a basement rig with 4 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 graphic cards ($15-20k machine), can it even run with any reasonable context window that isn't like a crawling 10/tps? Frontier models are far exceeding even the most hardcore consumer hobbyist requirements. This is even further
As someone with a basement rig of 6x 3090s, not really. It's quite slow, as with that many params (685B) it's offloading basically all of it into system RAM. I limit myself to models with <144B params, then it's quite an enjoyable experience. GLM 4.5 Air has been great in particular
Did you find it better than GPT-OSS 120B? The public rankings are contradictory.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, so exactly like Uber, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and so on have done to the rest of the world over the last few decades then? Where do you think they learnt this trick? Years lurking on HN and this post's comment section wins #1 on the American Hypocrisy chart. Unbelievable that even in the current US people can't recognize when they're looking in the mirror. But I guess you're disincentivized to do so…
Not American and I also agree that the current big techs should be broken up by force of the state, there is a very big difference between a company becoming monopolistic due to market forces, and a company becoming monopolistic due to state strategy, intervention, backing. Things can be bad in a spectrum and I believe it is much easier for society/state to break up a capitalistic monopoly than a state backed monopol…
And what exactly are grants then? Tariffs? All the lobbied laws that benefit specific corporations or industries? Aren't they state backed advantages?
Banks created their oligopolies and then who saved them when they fucked up?
Isn't Tesla a state backed monopoly in the USA because of grants and tariffs on external competitors? Isn't SpaceX? Yet nobody treats then as state backed.
I don't understand this necessity to put companies in a pedestal and hate on states. Capitalist propaganda I guess?
Market forces are manipulated all the time. This distinction is nonsense. Companies influence states and vice-versa.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sparse Attention, it's the highlight of this model as per the paper
How did we come to the place that the most transparent and open models are now coming out of China—freely sharing their research and source code—while all the American ones are fully locked down
The US is more law and finance led and the first thing seems to be to get an IP advantage and raise money. China I guess less so - they are famously lax on IP and everyone copies everything.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, this is complete insanity when practically every mega enterprises' hardware is largely Made in China.
Enterprise hardware isn’t the issue. It’s the software. How much enterprise hardware is running with Chinese software? The US basically bans any hardware with Chinese software that can disrupt infrastructure.
Backdoors in software are much easier to discover than backdoors in hardware.
Any kind of hardware that is somehow connected to the wired or wireless communication interfaces is much more dangerous than any software.
Backdoors embedded in such hardware devices may be impossible to identify before being activated by the reception of some "magic" signals from outside.
Re: DeepSeek-v3.2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models [pdf]
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What hurt open source in the past was its inability to keep up with the quality and feature depth of closed source competitors Quality was rarely the reason open source lagged in certain domains. Most of the time, open source solutions were technically superior. What actually hurt open source were structural forces, distribution advantages, and enterprise biases. One could make an argument that open source solution…
For most professional software, the open source options are toys. Is there anything like an open source DAW, for example? It's not because music producers are biased against open source, it's because the economics of open source are shitty unless you can figure out how to get a company to fund development.
> Is there anything like an open source DAW, for example?
Yes, Ardour. It’s no more a toy than KiCad or Blender.