I don’t really think they are stealing, because I don’t believe publicly available information can be property. The algorithm is open source so it is a correct labelling
My use of the word “stealing” is not a condemnation, so substitute it with “borrowing” or “using” if you want. It was already stolen by other tech oligarchs.
You can call the algo open source if the code is available under an OSS license. But the larger project still uses proprietary training data, and therefor the whole model, which requires proprietary training data to function is not open source.
That’s just not true, the technology and content are entirely different things. Many game engines for instance are open source, but not the games made with them. This is open source.
You’re conflating game engines being open source with the games themselves being proprietary. Proprietary products can use (some) open source things, but it doesnt make the end product open source.
Given that LLMs literally need the training data to be worth anything, releasing the final model without training data is not open source.
They did not release the final model without the data, they released the framework and tech to create it. It is not conflating, it is the same even with open source games (not engines) that art can be licensed. The open source refers to… The source… As you might guess
They did not release the final model without the data
They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.
You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
The relevant parts of the comment thread was about the claim that the model is open source. Below, you will find the subject of the comments bolded, for your better understanding of the conversation at hand:
Deepseek is a Chinese AI company that released Deepseek R1, a direct competitor to ChatGPT.
You forgot to mention that it’s open source.
Is it actually open source, or are we using the fake definition of “open source AI” that the OSI has massaged into being so corpo-friendly that the training data itself can be kept a secret?
many more inane comments…
And your most recent inane comment…
That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
Well, cool. No one ever claimed that “the tech” was not included or that parts of their process were open sourced. You answered a question that no one asked. The question was asking if the model itself is actually open source. No one has been able to substantiate the claim that the model is open source, which has made talking to you a giant waste of time.
I don’t really think they are stealing, because I don’t believe publicly available information can be property. The algorithm is open source so it is a correct labelling
My use of the word “stealing” is not a condemnation, so substitute it with “borrowing” or “using” if you want. It was already stolen by other tech oligarchs.
You can call the algo open source if the code is available under an OSS license. But the larger project still uses proprietary training data, and therefor the whole model, which requires proprietary training data to function is not open source.
That’s just not true, the technology and content are entirely different things. Many game engines for instance are open source, but not the games made with them. This is open source.
You’re conflating game engines being open source with the games themselves being proprietary. Proprietary products can use (some) open source things, but it doesnt make the end product open source.
Given that LLMs literally need the training data to be worth anything, releasing the final model without training data is not open source.
They did not release the final model without the data, they released the framework and tech to create it. It is not conflating, it is the same even with open source games (not engines) that art can be licensed. The open source refers to… The source… As you might guess
They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.
You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
The relevant parts of the comment thread was about the claim that the model is open source. Below, you will find the subject of the comments bolded, for your better understanding of the conversation at hand:
many more inane comments…
And your most recent inane comment…
Well, cool. No one ever claimed that “the tech” was not included or that parts of their process were open sourced. You answered a question that no one asked. The question was asking if the model itself is actually open source. No one has been able to substantiate the claim that the model is open source, which has made talking to you a giant waste of time.