Technology

37924 readers

590 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

The Unparalleled Ed Zitron Gives an Overview of the DeepSeek situation (www.wheresyoured.at)

submitted 1 day ago by PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat to c/technology@beehaw.org

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Look up the definition of the word cynical. It means, more or less, asserting that no one is motivated by sincere integrity. Accusing some specific people of lacking integrity, while holding up others as good examples of integrity that everyone should aspire to, is the opposite of cynicism.

Yeah, I know the definition of the word, and I meant what I said. Stop trying to think I said something else because you disagree.

He is incredibly cynical.

He thinks everyone in the tech industry is a moustache twirling villain and always ascribes malice where incompetence would do. Like I said, he's who you listen to when you want to hear someone go on an unhinged rant about everyone being evil, not someone with an accurate view of human nature or motivations.

He doesn’t address very much the idea that DeepSeek “distilled” their model from OpenAI’s model and others specifically because that is just a rumor with very minimal evidence for it.

There is very minimal evidence for literally EVERYTHING he writes about in this article. The whole talk of them working around the GPU restrictions also has incredibly minimal evidence and is just a rumour.

Once again, his motivation is not informing you, it's dunking in the tech industry. It's literally his entire persona and career.

The “rumors” you say he discusses about novel ways the Chinese researchers found to outperform OpenAI are based on an extremely detailed look at their paper and their code, as interpreted by experts.

No, they're not. He just portrays it that way because that makes the tech industry sound bad. We flat out do not know how they trained Deepseek's model.

Once again, I don't care that he's mean to any tech titan, I care that he's misinforming people because it's the easiest path to dunking on an industry that he has a preexisting vendetta against.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He thinks everyone in the tech industry is a moustache twirling villain and always ascribes malice where incompetence would do.

Here's him talking about people from the tech industry:

Nevertheless, Thompson (who I, and a great deal of people in the tech industry, deeply respect)

Every single article I’ve read about Gomes’ tenure at Google spoke of a man deeply ingrained in the foundation of one of the most important technologies ever made, who had dedicated decades to maintaining a product with a — to quote Gomes himself — “guiding light of serving the user and using technology to do that.”

Back to quoting you:

There is very minimal evidence for literally EVERYTHING he writes about in this article. The whole talk of them working around the GPU restrictions also has incredibly minimal evidence and is just a rumour.

We flat out do not know how they trained Deepseek’s model.

Correct. We do not know the training data, which makes it silly to decide that it is definitely cribbed from OpenAI's model. What we do know is how the code works, because it is open and they wrote a paper. What would you consider "evidence," if not the actual code and then a highly detailed explanation from the authors about how it works, and then some independent testing and interpretation by known experts? Do you want it carved on a golden tablet or something?

I think I'm done with this conversation. You seem very committed to simply repeating your point of view at me. You've done that, so I think we can go our separate ways.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Picking out random people to lionize too much while you demonize literally everyone else, is still being cynical.

Correct. We do not know the training data, which makes it silly to decide that it is definitely cribbed from OpenAI's model. What we do know is how the code works, because it is open and they wrote a paper. What would you consider "evidence," if not the actual code and then a highly detailed explanation from the authors about how it works, and then some independent testing and interpretation by known experts? Do you want it carved on a golden tablet or something?

Because the paper does not prove what DeepSeek is claiming. The paper outlines a number of clever techniques that might help to improve efficiency, but most researchers are still incredibly skeptical that they would add up to a full order of magnitude less compute power required for training.

Until someone else uses DeepSeek's techniques to openly train a comparable model off non-distilled data, we have no reason to believe their method is replicable.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ( or really just concrete, replicable, evidence), and we don't have that, at least not yet.