611–620 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
And we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to do so. If America is forced to use only the clunky corporate-owned American AI at a fee, we'll very quickly fall behind competitors worldwide who use DeepSeek models to produce better results for much, much cheaper. Not to mention it'd defeat the whole purpose of a "free market" economy. (Not that that means much of anything anymore)
OpenAI is like a team of fodder monkeys stepping on landmines right now, with the rest of the world waiting behind them.
DeepSeek have more integrity than 'Open'AI by not even pretending to care about that.
And seem to be more actively fulfilling the mission that 'Open'AI pretends to strive for.
I can scarcely process all the levels of irony involved, the irony-o-meter is pegged and I can't get the good one from the safe because I'm incapacitated from laughter.
I think there's two different things going on here: "DeepSeek trained on our outputs and that's not fair because those outputs are ours, and you shouldn't take other peoples' data!" This is obviously extremely silly, because that's exactly how OpenAI got all of its training data in the first place - by scraping other peoples' data off the internet. "DeepSeek trained on our outputs, and so their claims of replicating…
Why would it cast any doubt? If you can use o1 output to build a better R1. Then use R1 output to build a better X1... then a better X2.. XN, that just shows a method to create better systems for a fraction of the cost from where we stand. If it was that obvious OpenAI should have themselves done. But the disruptors did it. It hindsight it might sound obvious, but that is true for all innovations. It is all good stuf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm willing to bet ''ban DeepSeek'' voices will start soon. Why compete, when you can just ban?
They've started already, I've seen posts on LinkedIn implying or outright stating that DeepSeek is a national security risk (IMHO, LinkedIn being the social media outlet most corporate-sycophantic). I went ahead and just picked this one at random from my feed. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kevinkeller_deepseek-privacy-...
Objection overruled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it cast any doubt? If you can use o1 output to build a better R1. Then use R1 output to build a better X1... then a better X2.. XN, that just shows a method to create better systems for a fraction of the cost from where we stand. If it was that obvious OpenAI should have themselves done. But the disruptors did it. It hindsight it might sound obvious, but that is true for all innovations. It is all good stuf…
I think it would cast doubt on the narrative "you could have trained o1 with much less compute, and r1 is proof of that", if it turned out that in order to train r1 in the first place, you had to have access to bunch of outputs from o1. In other words, you had to do the really expensive o1 training in the first place. (with the caveat that all we have right now are accusations that DeepSeek made use of OpenAI data -…
Let's just assume that the cost of training can be externalized to other people for free.