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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by leobg »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #813
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…

OpenAI is taking the position similar to that if you sell a cook book, people are not allowed to copy the recipes into their own book and claim they did it all on their own.

Nobody is copying their model parameters or inference code.

What people “suck out” of their API are the general ideas. And they do it specifically so they can reassemble them in their own way.

It’s like reading all the Jack Reacher novels and then creating your own hero living through similar situations, but with a different name.

You’ll read it and you’ll say, dang, that situation/metaphor/expression/character reminds me of that Reacher novel. But there’s nothing Lee Child can do about it.

And that’s perfectly fine. Because he himself took many of his ideas from others, like Le Carré.

It’s the Eternal Tao.

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

#973

Post by RHSman2 »

riantogo wrote: post #461
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…

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…

When will over training happen on the melange of models at scale? And will AGI only ever be an extension of this concept?

That is where artificial intelligence is going. Copy things from other things. Will there be a AI Eureka moment where it deviates and knows where and why the reason it is wrong?

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

#974

Post by bazmattaz »

alexathrowawa9 wrote: post #538
me551ah wrote: post #158

OpenAI is going after a company that open sourced their model, by distilling from their non-open AI? OpenAI talks a lot about the principles of being Open, while still keeping their models closed and not fostering the open source community or sharing their research. Now when a company distills their models using perfectly allowed methods on the public internet, OpenAI wants to shut them down too? High time OpenAI cha…

The name OpenAI gets more ridiculous by the day Would not be surprised if they do a rebrand eventually

I was thinking about this the other day but I highly doubt they would rebrand name. They’re borderline a household name now - at least ChatGPT is. OpenAI is the face of AI - at least to people who don’t follow the industry

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

#975

Post by plantwallshoe »

mrkpdl wrote: post #676

The cat is out of the bag. This is the landscape now, r1 was made in a post-o1 world. Now other models can distill r1 and so on. I don’t buy the argument that distilling from o1 undermines deep seek’s claims around expense at all. Just as open AI used the tools ‘available to them’ to train their models (eg everyone else’ data), r1 is using today’s tools. Does open AI really have a moral or ethical high ground here?

I don’t think there is any ethical issue here, but I don’t think it’s good for the industry to remove all incentives for companies to spend lots of money solving hard, novel problems.

Why would anyone go through the effort of training the next groundbreaking model if they know they can just wait for someone else to do it and leverage that work?

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

#976

Post by janalsncm »

alasr wrote: post #794

> OpenAI says it has evidence DeepSeek used its model to train competitor. > The San Francisco-based ChatGPT maker told the Financial Times it had seen some evidence of “distillation”, which it suspects to be from DeepSeek. > ... > OpenAI declined to comment further or provide details of its evidence. Its terms of service state users cannot “copy” any of its services or “use output to develop models that compete with…

Also, there are so many innovations in their papers (Deepseek math, Deepseek v2/v3, R1) that I honestly wouldn’t even care. They figured out a way to train on only 2048 H800s when big companies are buying them in the hundreds of thousands. They created a new RL algorithm. They improved MoE. They improved the KV cache. They built an super efficient training framework.

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

#977

Post by _cs2017_ »

alecco wrote: post #493
blast wrote: post #374

Everyone is responding to the intellectual property issue, but isn't that the less interesting point? If Deepseek trained off OpenAI, then it wasn't trained from scratch for "pennies on the dollar" and isn't the Sputnik-like technical breakthrough that we've been hearing so much about. That's the news here. Or rather, the potential news, since we don't know if it's true yet.

Even if all that about training is true, the bigger cost is inference and Deepseek is 100x cheaper. That destroys OpenAI/Anthropic's value proposition of having a unique secret sauce so users are quickly fleeing to cheaper alternatives. Google Deepmind's recent Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking is also priced at the new Deepseek level. It's pretty good (unlike previous Gemini models). [0] https://x.com/deedydas/status/188335…

WTF dude, check your source (@deedydas). He seems to be posting garbage. The Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking price isn't known yet. And on top of that, he gave the wrong number for R1 test results on AIME 2024 (it's 79.8%, far ahead of Gemini rather than far behind.

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

#979

Post by csomar »

plantwallshoe wrote: post #975
mrkpdl wrote: post #676

The cat is out of the bag. This is the landscape now, r1 was made in a post-o1 world. Now other models can distill r1 and so on. I don’t buy the argument that distilling from o1 undermines deep seek’s claims around expense at all. Just as open AI used the tools ‘available to them’ to train their models (eg everyone else’ data), r1 is using today’s tools. Does open AI really have a moral or ethical high ground here?

I don’t think there is any ethical issue here, but I don’t think it’s good for the industry to remove all incentives for companies to spend lots of money solving hard, novel problems. Why would anyone go through the effort of training the next groundbreaking model if they know they can just wait for someone else to do it and leverage that work?

> Why would anyone go through the effort of training the next groundbreaking model if they know they can just wait for someone else to do it and leverage that work?

Why would anyone write, work or research anything if they know it would be consumed by AI and sold on a $xx/month subscription?

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

#980

Post by fakedang »

vkou wrote: post #620
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 -…

If OpenAi had to account for the cost of producing all the copyrighted material they trained their LLM on, their system would be worth negative trillions of dollars. Let's just assume that the cost of training can be externalized to other people for free.

Even if what OpenAI asserts in the title of this post is true, then their system is worth negative trillions of dollars.

If other players can access that data with relatively less effort, then it's futile trying to train your models and improve upon them, as clearly you don't have an architectural moat, just a training moat.

Kind of like an office scene where an introverted hardworker does all the tedious work, while his extroverted colleague promotes it as his and gains credit.

Post reply on HN