Not exactly sure of what “dominating” a market means, but the title is on a good point: innovation requires much more cooperation than competition. And the ‘AI race’ between nations is an antiquated mainframe pushed by media.
Didnt it turn out that they used 10000 nvidia cards that had the 100er Chips, and the “low level success” and “low cost” is a lie?
also they aren’t actually open source? Only the weights are open source?
Pretty sure Valve has already realized the correct way to be a tech monopoly is to provide a good user experience.
Idk, I kind of disagree with some of their updates at least in the UI department.
They treat customers well, though.
Personally, I think Microsoft open sourcing .NET was the first clue open source won.
Wall Street’s panic over DeepSeek is peak clown logic—like watching a room full of goldfish debate quantum physics. Closed ecosystems crumble because they’re built on the delusion that scarcity breeds value, while open source turns scarcity into oxygen. Every dollar spent hoarding GPUs for proprietary models is a dollar wasted on reinventing wheels that the community already gave away for free.
The Docker parallel is obvious to anyone who remembers when virtualization stopped being a luxury and became a utility. DeepSeek didn’t “disrupt” anything—it just reminded us that innovation isn’t about who owns the biggest sandbox, but who lets kids build castles without charging admission.
Governments and corporations keep playing chess with AI like it’s a Cold War relic, but the board’s already on fire. Open source isn’t a strategy—it’s gravity. You don’t negotiate with gravity. You adapt or splat.
Cheap reasoning models won’t kill demand for compute. They’ll turn AI into plumbing. And when’s the last time you heard someone argue over who owns the best pipe?
Governments and corporations still use the same playbooks because they’re still oversaturated with Boomers who haven’t learned a lick since 1987.
Apparently DeepSeek is lying, they were collecting thousands of NVIDIA chips against the US embargo and it’s not about the algorithm. The model’s good results come just from sheer chip volume and energy used. That’s the story I’ve heard and honeslty it sounds legit.
Not sure if this questions has been answered: if it’s open sourced, cant we see what algorithms they used to train it? If we could then we would know the answer. I assume we cant, but if we cant, then whats so cool about it being open source on the other hand? What parts of code are valuable there besides algorithms?
Sauce?
internet
Elaborate? Link? Please tell me this is not just an “allegedly”.
extra time which Im not sure I want to spend
It’s your burden of proof, bud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSr_vwZGF2k This is what I watched. I base my opinion on this. Im not saying this is true. It just sounded legit enough and I didnt have time to research more. I will gladly follow some links that lead me to content that destroys this guys arguments
My god, the preamble for that thing is so dang long. 13:30 with some AI sponsorship the comments are talking about I may have accidentally skipped over, and only 10:27-11:37 deals with what you’re talking about. The video makes a good point that they have existing operating infrastructure. However, for the stockpiling accusation, the statements that it cites are from the CEO of big competitor “Chips AI”, who cite nothing except “only costing $6 million is impossible, therefore it actually cost more and they must have cheated! I think they have 50,000 illegally imported Nvidia GPUs!” which just sounds like the behavior of a cult ringleader trying to maintain power to me. The other source it cites for this claim is Elon Musk, whose reasoning was “Obviously”.
This is after all, a court of law.
I just think that no matter whether DeepSeek smuggled or not, an investigation into whether or not they smuggled is of course going to be launched. I do want more transparency regarding where the Singapore billing goes, but that alone is too shaky for conclusions.
No one here is going to be involved with any of it.
um, yeah?
It’s open sauce.
Cope be strong in this one lol
It’s time for you to do some serious self-reflection about the inherent biases you believe about Asians.
WTF dude. You mentioned Asia. I love Asians. Asia is vast. There are many countries, not just China bro. I think you need to do these reflections. Im talking about very specific case of Chinese Deepseek devs potentiall lying about the chips. The assumptions and generalizations you are thinking of are crazy.
And how do your feelings stand up to the fact that independent researchers find the paper to be reproducible?
Well maybe. Apparntly some folks are already doing that but its not done yet. Let’s wait for the results. If everything is legit we should have not one but plenty of similar and better models in near future. If Chinese did this with 100 chips imagine what can be done with 100000 chips that nvidia can sell to a us company
“China bad”
*sounds legit
Sounds legit is what one hears about FUD spread by alglophone media every time the US oligarchy is caught with their pants down.
Snowden: “US is illegally spying on everyone”
Media: Snowden is Russia spy
*Sounds legit
France: US should not unilaterally invade a country
Media: Iraq is full of WMDs
*Sounds legit
DeepSeek: Guys, distillation and body of experts is a way to save money and energy, here’s a paper on how to do same.
Media: China bad, deepseek must be cheating
*Sounds legit
I don’t like this. Everything you’re saying is true, but this argument isn’t persuasive, it’s dehumanizing. Making people feel bad for disagreeing doesn’t convince them to stop disagreeing.
A more enlightened perspective might be “this might be true or it might not be, so I’m keeping an open mind and waiting for more evidence to arrive in the future.”
Sounds legit
Yup. Thats internet nowadays. Full of comments like this. Cant do muich about it
We already have all the evidence. This isn’t some developing story, the paper is reproducible. What’s dehumanizing is assuming that Asians can’t make good software.
This is your brain on Chinese/Russian propaganda.
Can you point out any factual inaccuracies or is it just that your wittew fee-fees got hurt?
Snowden really proved he wasn’t a Russian spy when he… check notes… immediately fled to Russia with troves of American secrets…
immediately fled to Russia with troves of American secrets
Russia wasn’t his final destiny. He was en route to somewhere else when his passport was revoked.
There’s so much misinfo spreading about this, and while I don’t blame you for buying it, I do blame you for spreading it. “It sounds legit” is not how you should decide to trust what you read. Many people think the earth is flat because the conspiracy theories sound legit to them.
DeepSeek probably did lie about a lot of things, but their results are not disputed. R1 is competitive with leading models, it’s smaller, and it’s cheaper. The good results are definitely not from “sheer chip volume and energy used”, and American AI companies could have saved a lot of money if they had used those same techniques.
DeepSeek shook the AI world because it’s cheaper, not because it’s open source.
And it’s not really open source either. Sure, the weights are open, but the training materials aren’t. Good look looking at the weights and figuring things out.
I think it’s both. OpenAI was valued at a certain point because of a perceived moat of training costs. The cheapness killed the myth, but open sourcing it was the coup de grace as they couldn’t use the courts to put the genie back into the bottle.
True, but they also released a paper that detailed their training methods. Is the paper sufficiently detailed such that others could reproduce those methods? Beats me.
I hate to disagree but IIRC deepseek is not a open-source model but open-weight?
It’s tricky. There is code involved, and the code is open source. There is a neural net involved, and it is released as open weights. The part that is not available is the “input” that went into the training. This seems to be a common way in which models are released as both “open source” and “open weights”, but you wouldn’t necessarily be able to replicate the outcome with $5M or whatever it takes to train the foundation model, since you’d have to guess about what they used as their input training corpus.
Definitions are tricky, and especially for terms that are broadly considered virtuous/positive by the general public (cf. “organic”) but I tend to deny something is open source unless you can recreate any binaries/output AND it is presented in the “preferred form for modification” (i.e. the way the GPLv3 defines the “source form”).
A disassembled/decompiled binary might nominally be in some programming language–suitable input to a compiler for that langauge–but that doesn’t actually make it the source code for that binary because it is not in the form the entity most enabled to make a modified form of the binary (normally the original author) would prefer to make modifications.
I view it as the source code of the model is the training data. The code supplied is a bespoke compiler for it, which emits a binary blob (the weights). A compiler is written in code too, just like any other program. So what they released is the equivalent of the compiler’s source code, and the binary blob that it output when fed the training data (source code) which they did NOT release.
I’m not too informed about DeepSeek. Is it real open-source, or fake open-source?
It’s semi-open, not fully open source as what is typically thought of.
That sounds like fake open-source. Can I download the source, build it, have the thing run locally on my own machine, and use it without it having to interact with this company’s servers?
You can’t built it yourself but you can download the model and run it locally on your machine without it interacting to any server.
There is a community-driven project aimed at making a fully reproducible version called Open-R1. You can find it at https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1.
Deepseek is the company, R1 is an MIT-licensed produce, they have the Qwen models under Apache license.
You can download, modify, run locally. There are many copies online out of Deepseek’s control.
I just looked it up.
"The AI research company DeepSeek recently released its large language model (LLM) under the MIT License, providing model weights, inference code, and technical documentation. However, the company did not release its training code, sparking a heated debate about whether DeepSeek can truly be considered “open-source.”
This controversy stems from differing interpretations of what constitutes open-source in the context of large language models. While some argue that without training code, a model cannot be considered fully open-source, others highlight that DeepSeek’s approach aligns with industry norms followed by leading AI companies like Meta, Google, and Alibaba."
So fake open-source.
