trevor

I just cant wrap my head around why they’re willing to go so far to gain good will from people by having such a generous free tier, but somehow licensing the code under a FOSS license is out of the question??

Why not just go all the way and make sure everyone who cares about reading the souce could also give you free contributions?

Yes, because private property is theft. But unequal enforcement of copyright law is worse. Right now, LLMs are just lying machines trained on pirated data and the companies that run them are acting with impunity for doing something a normal person would get put in jail for.

Copyright is immoral, but as long as it exists, the laws should be extra strict on companies that steal others’ works.

I need some security researchers to tear this obvious dystopian spyware apart so we can see what kind of disgusting shit it’s doing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I mean, god bless 'em for stealing already-stolen data from scumfuck tech oligarchs and causing a muti-billion dollar devaluation in the AI bubble. If people could just stop laundering the term “open source”, that’d be great.

Yes. That solution would be to not lie about it by calling something that isn’t open source “open source”.

That’s fine if you think the algorithm is the most important thing. I think the training data is equally important, and I’m so frustrated by the bastardization of the meaning of “open source” as it’s applied to LLMs.

It’s like if a normal software product provides a thin wrapper over a proprietary library that you must link against calling their project open source. The wrapper is open, but the actual substance of what provides the functionality isn’t.

It’d be fine if we could just use more honest language like “open weight”, but “open source” means something different.

Absolutely, but this is one of the worst reasons to advocate self-hosting a service. The kinds of people that are upset about higher security standards should not be self-hosting anything.

The training data is the important piece, and if that’s not open, then it’s not open source.

I don’t want the data to avoid using the official one. I want the data so that so that I can reproduce the model. Without the training data, you can’t reproduce the model, and if you can’t do that, it’s not open source.

The idea that a normal person can scrape the same amount and quality of data that any company or government can, and tune the weights enough to recreate the model is absurd.

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?

Operation Pastaclip

Nah. Tankies are wrong, but they’re also powerless. Conservatives actually have power though, and are extremely dangerous.

I really hope South Korea does the right thing and puts their tyrant under the jail (figuratively speaking, of course).

I just desperately want more new games like Crash, Spyro, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, etc. 😭

The only thing we’ve gotten in the decades since then was A Hat in Time, which was absolutely terrific, but the lack of other good games in this genre pretty much killed gaming as a hobby for me.

The closest that you can get is using something like Grayjay, where they have their own social media system, but your comments will only be interactable to other people using Grayjay.

It would require acting outside the confines of the law, because fascists aren’t bound by the law either. And the more the US government is made obvious to be a joke, the more people might finally get the fucking clue that institutions are meaningless when they don’t actually enforce the rules or provide meaningful support for what the working class actually needs, and they might eventually decide to do something about it.

That is, of course, hopeful thinking on my part, but I think it’s the only correct answer to “what can we do when an overt fascist has power”.

Additionally, on an interpersonal level, you need to find communities IRL if you don’t have them, and be defiant together. Don’t let these evil fucks normalize anymore bigotry or conspiracies than they already have. Even if social norms would dictate otherwise, call that shit out when it happens.

And don’t preemptively give up or resign your position if you hold some sort of influential role in society. Don’t make it easy for them. Every single bit of defiance makes it that much harder to impose the hell which they intend to inflict, which is in and of itself valuable.

The problem isn’t isn’t solved by Biden or Harris being “strong” on the border, because it is the wrong problem.

The real problem is that democrats have accepted the right-wing framing on immigration, by laundering the far-right narrative that there is a border crisis and putting forward a far-right immigration bill that would give the president unilateral power to shut down the border.

Them capitulating to this narrative lends validity to patently racist propaganda, like we’re seeing with Haitian migrants and the “Venezuelan gangs” story.

Aside from the fact that demonizing minority groups being a morally disgusting thing to do, it’s really stupid political strategy for the democrats. Voters that are preoccupied with brown people coming into the country will vote overwhelmingly for Repugs every single time. Democrats will not be able to win over those people racists by trying to out-righting the Republicans.