They HAVE done that. It's one of the techniques they use to produce things like o1 mini models and the other mini models that run on device.
But that's not a valid technique for creating new foundation models, just for creating refined versions of existing models. You would never have been able to create for instance, an o1 model from Chat PT 3.5 using distillation.
If that was all he said, I would have no issue with that. But no, he spent 10,000 words padding that sentiment out with as much tripe and snark as he could.
Lmfao, so now Lemmy thinks that the stock market is an arbiter of value and truth?
I'm sure you really thought that one through. You seem incapable of understanding nuance or thinking through your points, so maybe sit a few conversations out and reflect on the fact that you immediately defaulted to thinking of me as a moustache twirling villain.
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.
Wanting a better world, and holding up a light to the current one to show the differences between what could be and what is, is not at all what "cynical" means. "Cynical" is the opposite of what you mean. "Pessimistic" or "negative" is definitely more apt, yes.
No, I said cynical and I meant cynical.
I don't care that he criticizes the tech industry, I care that he feels the innate need to portray everyone in it as moustache twirling villains, rather than normal people caught up in the same capitalist systems and pressures as everyone else.
Even here, he spends all the article focusing on rumours about Chinese researchers making novel ways to outperform OpenAI and the like, and just makes a dismissive joke about the accusations that they effectively trained their model using OpenAI's model. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the morality of ignoring copyright to copy a copier, it's an incredibly important point because that is not a replicable strategy for actually creating new models. But rather than address that in any way, he dismisses it in a paragraph to spend another couple thousand words trying to dunk on the western tech industry in the snarkiest tone possible.
Lol, Ed Zirtron is very paralleled.
He's pessimistic and cynical to the point of being conspiratorial and delusional.
He's someone to listen to when you want to hear someone go on an unhinged rant about the tech industry, not someone you listen to when you want to actually understand how it works.
I mean look at this trash article, he spends 5000 words saying effectively nothing. Things he could have explained by just linking to pre-existing, better written articles, instead, he rehashes everything in a snarky tone while skipping over some of the most important points (like training through distillation).
I don't agree with punishing people for sins of their grandfather, but he Sig Heiled twice at a political rally. Any family and personal connections to Nazism has become inarguably relevant.
I find that working on production code with well defined use cases and requirements to be the most satisfying, and working on new proof of concept / demos / marketing tools to be the least satisfying.
So on balance, more of the legacy projects I've worked on have fit those criteria than the new builds, but the couple of new builds that had well defined use cases, and no legacy code to deal with were the absolute best.
Lmao, rich coming from you after I already explained why the architecture is inherently, and fundamentally about controlling all interactions, not about seamless UX which can be achieved with other architectures.
It is literally just a factual term. Many Jewish people would proudly declare themselves Zionist if you asked them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
It may also just be a result of not being around left wing Jewish people since they tend to want to distinguish themselves from Zionists / Israelis.
Picking out random people to lionize too much while you demonize literally everyone else, is still being cynical.
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.