Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by jeanlucas »

jajko wrote: post #926
PeterStuer wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically Deepseek is doing what Open AI originally pledged to do. Making the model open and free is a gift to humanity. Look at the whole AI revolution that Meta and others have bootstrapped by opening their models. Meanwhile OpenAI/Microsoft, Antropic, Google and the rest are just trying to look after number 1 while trying to regulatory capture an AI for me but not for thee outcome of full control.

I don't think it makes sense to look at some previous PR statements of Altman et al re this when there a tens of billions floating around and egos get inflated to moon sizes. Farts in the wind have more weight, but this goes for all corporate PR. Thieves yelling 'stop those thieves' scenario to me, they just were first and would not like losing that position. But its all about money and consequently power, business a…

But it makes sense to expose their blatantly lies whenever possible to diminish the credibility they are trying to build while accusing others of the same they did

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

#932

Post by WhyNotHugo »

namuol wrote: post #537
thorum wrote: post #125

> “It is (relatively) easy to copy something that you know works,” Altman tweeted. “It is extremely hard to do something new, risky, and difficult when you don’t know if it will work.” The humor/hypocrisy of the situation aside, it does seem to be true that OpenAI is consistently the one coming up with new ideas first (GPT 4, o1, 4o-style multimodality, voice chat, DALL-E, …) and then other companies reproduce their…

The eye-watering funding numbers proposed by Altman in the past and more recently with “Stargate” suggests a publicly-funded research pivot is not out of the question. Could see a big defense department grant being given. Sigh.

I don't see any reason to assume that "publicly funded" will imply that the research is public. Although I'd be more than happy to be wrong on this one.

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

#933

Post by gregw2 »

thiago_fm wrote: post #310
wanderingmoose wrote: post #297

There is a lot of discussion here about IP theft. Honest question, from deepseek's point of view as a company under a different set of laws than US/Western -- was there IP theft? A company like OpenAI can put whatever licensing they want in place. But that only matters if they can enforce it. The question is, can they enforce it against deepseek? Did deepseek do something illegal under the laws of their originating c…

The most interesting part is that China has been ahead of the US in AI for many years, just not in LLMs. You need to visit mainland China and see how AI applications are everywhere, from transport to goods shipping. I'm not surprised at all. I hope this in the end makes the US kill its strict IP laws, which is the problem. If the US doesn't, China will always have a huge edge on it, no matter how much NVidia hardware…

The superiority of TikTok's recommendation algorithm outcomes over youtube should have been a clue.

BTW, who in China is doing the best AI on goods shipping since you mention it?

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

#934

Post by handsclean »

jajko wrote: post #926
PeterStuer wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically Deepseek is doing what Open AI originally pledged to do. Making the model open and free is a gift to humanity. Look at the whole AI revolution that Meta and others have bootstrapped by opening their models. Meanwhile OpenAI/Microsoft, Antropic, Google and the rest are just trying to look after number 1 while trying to regulatory capture an AI for me but not for thee outcome of full control.

I don't think it makes sense to look at some previous PR statements of Altman et al re this when there a tens of billions floating around and egos get inflated to moon sizes. Farts in the wind have more weight, but this goes for all corporate PR. Thieves yelling 'stop those thieves' scenario to me, they just were first and would not like losing that position. But its all about money and consequently power, business a…

Yes, but we were duped at the time, so it’s right and good that we maintain light on and anger at the ongoing manipulation, in the hope of next time recognizing it as it happens, not after they’ve used us, screwed us, and walked away with a vast fortune.

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

#935

Post by TeMPOraL »

zombiwoof wrote: post #640
Imnimo wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -…

Exactly. They piggybacked of lots of compute and used less. There still is a total sum of a massive amount of compute

Sure. This is fine. Data is still a product, no matter how much businesses would like to turn it into a service.

The model already embodies the "total sum of a massive amount of compute" used to create it; if it's possible to reuse that embodied compute to create a better model, that's good for the world. Forcing everyone to redo all that compute for themselves is, conversely, bad for the world.

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

#936

Post by curt15 »

PeterStuer wrote: post #911
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…

Ironically Deepseek is doing what Open AI originally pledged to do. Making the model open and free is a gift to humanity. Look at the whole AI revolution that Meta and others have bootstrapped by opening their models. Meanwhile OpenAI/Microsoft, Antropic, Google and the rest are just trying to look after number 1 while trying to regulatory capture an AI for me but not for thee outcome of full control.

Is there anything still "open" about OpenAI these days?

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

#937

Post by natdempk »

valine wrote: post #503
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…

The existence of R1-zero is evidence against any sort of theft of OpenAI's internal COT data. The model sometimes outputs illegible text that's useful only to R1. You can't do distillation without a shared vocabulary. The only way R1 could exist is if they trained it with RL.

I don’t think anyone is really suggesting they stole COT or that it is leaked, but rather that the final o1 outputs were used to train the base model and reasoning components more easily.

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

#938

Post by paul_e_warner »

There seem to be two kinda incompatible things in this article: 1. R1 is a distillation o1. This is against it's terms of service and possibly some form of IP theft. 2. R1 was leveraging GPT-4 to make it's output seem more human. This is very common and most universities and startups do it and it's impossible to prevent.

When you take both of these points and put them back to back, a natural answer seems to suggest itself which I'm not sure the authors intended to imply: R1 attempted to use o1 to make its answers seem more human, and as a result it accidentally picked up most of it's reasoning capabilities in the process. Is my reading totally off?

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

#939

Post by paul_e_warner »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #478
rockemsockem wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the prevailing narrative ATM is that DeepSeek's own innovation was done in isolation and they surpassed OpenAI. Even though in the paper they give a lot of credit to Llama for their techniques. The idea that they used o1's outputs for their distillation further shows that models like o1 are necessary. All of this should have been clear anyway from the start, but that's the Internet for you.

> the prevailing narrative ATM is that DeepSeek's own innovation was done in isolation and they surpassed OpenAI I did not think this, nor did I think this was what others assumed. The narrative, I thought, was that there is little point in paying OpenAI for LLM usage when a much cheaper, similar / better version can be made and used for a fraction of the cost (whether it's on the back of existing LLM research doesn'…

There were different narratives for different people. When I heard about r1, my first response was to dig into their paper and it's references to figure out how they did it.

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

#940

Post by stef25 »

m348e912 wrote: post #850
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…

> "DeepSeek trained on our outputs" I'm wondering how Deepseek could have made 100s of millions of training queries to OpenAI and not one person at OpenAI caught on.

Mechanical turks ?
Post reply on HN