TechTakes

1633 readers

110 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

DeepSeek roundup: banned by governments, no guard rails, lied about its training costs (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago (20 children)

Even if they greatly underreported costs and their services are banned: the models are out there, open source and way more efficient than anything Meta and OpenAI could produce.

So it's pretty obvious that the tech giants are burning money for mediocre output.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

you do know that you don’t have to be a pliant useful idiot like this, right? doing the free “open source” pr repetition (when it’s none of that)? shit’s more like shareware (if that at all - certainly doesn’t have the same spiritual roots as shareware. for them it’s some shit thrown over the wall to keep the rabble quiet)

(it’d be nice if we could popularise something like how kernel will go “tainted”, but unfortunately the entire fucking llm field is so we’d need a stronger word)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The model is MIT licensed.

Of course you're free to go full Stallman, but that's an open source license.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the build artifact is distributed MIT-licensed, that's substantially different (and intentionally subversive). there is no reproducibility. which, you know, hint hint nudge nudge that thing that I already said

I realize that outsourced thinking is why you want LLMs, but it clearly still doesn't help. maybe you should try the old brainmeat. just stop huffing your farts first, those are bad for you

[+] [email protected] -11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So in that thinking, Wikipedia is not open source, if the editor used a proprietary browser?

Maybe you should try not to act like a complete asshole. You're pedantic in all the wrong places and extremely arrogant. I know, living in your lonely world makes a bitter person, but you're still wrong and you're still an asshole.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

my fucking god how have you missed the point this hard. fuck off

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

also:

So in that thinking, Wikipedia is not open source, if the editor used a proprietary browser?

fucking no! how in fuck do you manage to misunderstand LLMs so much that you think the weights not being reproducible is at all comparable to… editing Wikipedia from a proprietary browser???? this shit isn’t even remotely exotic from an open source standpoint — it’s a binary blob loaded by an open source framework, like how binary blob modules taint the Linux kernel (you glided right past this reference when our other poster made it, weird that) or how loading a proprietary ROM in an open source emulator doesn’t make the ROM open source. the weights being permissively licensed doesn’t make them open source (or really make any sense at all) if the source literally isn’t available.