OpenAI says it has evidence DeepSeek used its model to train competitor

Post by kragen » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:21 AM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #732

leobg wrote: post #711

OpenAI is taking the position similar to that if you sell a cook book, people are not allowed to teach the recipes to their kids, or make better versions of them. That is absurd. Copyright law is designed to strike a balance between two issues. One the one hand, the creator’s personality that’s baked into the specific form of expression. And on the other hand, society’s interest in ideas being circulated, improved an…

Just to play devil's advocate, OAI can argue that they spent great effort creating and procuring annotated data. Such datasets are indeed their secret, and now DS gets them for free by distilling OAI's output. Besides, OAI's EULA explicitly forbids users from using the output of their API for model training. I'm not saying that OAI is right, of course. Just to present OAI's point of view.

Post by harry8 » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:30 AM UTC

ok123456 wrote: post #106

OpenAI's models were trained on ebooks from a private ebook torrent tracker leeched en-mass during a free leech event by people who hated private torrent trackers and wanted to destroy their "economy." The books were all in epub format, converted, cleaned to plain text, and hosted on a public data hoarder site.

Post by buzzerbetrayed » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:41 AM UTC

el_cujo wrote: post #647

joe_the_user wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Deepseek trained off OpenAI, then it wasn't trained from scratch for "pennies on the dollar" If OpenAI trained on the intellectual property of others, maybe it wasn't the creativity breakthrough people claim? Oppositely If you say ChatGPT was trained on "whatever data was available", and you say Deepseek was trained "whatever data was available", then they sound pretty equivalent. All the rough consensus language…

I'm not an OpenAI apologist and don't like what they've done with other people's intellectual property but I think that's kind of a false equivalency. OpenAI's GPT 3.5/4 was a big leap forward in the technology in terms of functionality. DeepSeek-r1 isn't really a huge step forward in output, it's mostly comparable to existing models, one thing that is really cool about it is it being able to be trained from scratch…

Post by javier2 » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:42 AM UTC

Imnimo wrote: post #320

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…

Post by manquer » Thu, Jan 30, 2025, 12:46 AM UTC

Imnimo wrote: post #504

riantogo wrote: post #461

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 -…