| |
| ▲ | wood_spirit 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | When OpenAI surged ahead Meta ended up giving away its incredibly expensive to make llama model to reduce the OpenAI valuations. Is DeepSeeks openness in part to reduce the big American tech companies? | | |
| ▲ | ALLTaken 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Correlation isn't causation, I hate to say this, but here's really applicable. Facebook aka Meta has always been very opensource. Let's not talk about the license though. :) Why do you imply malice in OSS companies? Or for profit companies opensourcing their models and sourcecode? | | |
| ▲ | mwigdahl 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Personally I don't impute any malice whatsoever -- these are soulless corporate entities -- but a for-profit company with fiduciary duty to shareholders releasing expensive, in-house-developed intellectual property for free certainly deserves some scrutiny. I tend to believe this is a "commoditize your complement" strategy on Meta's part, myself. No idea what Deepseek's motivation is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar strategy. | | |
| ▲ | eidifikwn24 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In its ideal form, the sum of every participant commoditising their complements is how competition should benefit everyone — albeit at the expense of excess returns | |
| ▲ | astrange 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Companies basically don't have fiduciary duties to shareholders. Also, Zuck has all the votes and can do whatever he wants. | | |
| ▲ | ALLTaken 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This I think is closer to the truth, there can be despite all fiducuiary duty an executive who just wants his way. I admire being bold. OSS is in my opinion a "Co-Operation request" and co-operation is in game theory a winning move. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaway314155 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Meta is decidedly not an "OSS company" no matter how much they put out. | | |
| ▲ | SXX 7 days ago | parent [-] | | In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Even companies centered around open source like Gitlab are usually generate most of their revenue of proprietary products or use liceses like BSL. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway314155 7 days ago | parent [-] | | > In this case there are very few truly "OSS companies" except for Red Hat and few other Linux distribution maintainers. Okay then. Fine by me. > Gitlab Perfect example. They have OSS offerings. They are not an OSS _company_. This also serves to exclude the hundreds of VC-backed "totally open source 100% not going to enshittify this when our investors come asking for returns". Which, again, I'm fine with. The business model of the purist OSS company is not one that's been found to be terribly successful. Nevertheless, it _is_ one which has a sort of moral high ground at least. I would prefer to leave definitions as is so as to keep that distinction (of having the moral high ground) crystal clear. Does that make sense? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | phoronixrly 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If only totalitarian nation states used their subjects' money to undermine the dominance of US-based software vendors by releasing open-source alternatives created with slave labour... Oh wait, it can't work because software patents are here to the rescue again ... Wait, open source is communism? Always has been. /s |
| |
| ▲ | Febra33 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Let's not confuse the company with the country What's wrong with China? They're wonderful in the OSS ecosystem. | | |
| ▲ | ALLTaken 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn't want to be politically correct, but also not insensitive. Many countries produce great things, but if we measure these countries rigerously, just a few stand out. Unfortunately from here on it get's messy, political, unsubstantiated or backed by data that is inherently biased due to selection criteria and weight. It's very difficult to be truly unbiased and neutral and it's not my goal, I just think it's a common thought, that needs to be challenged. To associate products/results of scientists, quants, engineers and companies they are employed with an entire Nation is inherently simplistic. In that case, why did the CIA/NSA develop TOR and made it OSS?
If the governments in the UK/France/Turkey are so brutally against encryption, why does the USA release safe encryption products? If the world were absolute, we would absolutely be doomed and I hope to be part of a world, where freedom of thought, responsibility of each, constructive cooperation and a mesh of companies can work and produce value from and with each other permissionlessly. A world where Copyright/Patents are not needed anymore, because a stronger framework supports the individual contributor and also companies. Leftist, Right and Centrists views how an economy should look like are flawed, because they introduce idealogies to a mathematical non-linear partially closed but mostly open system. Every idealistic concept shouldn't be believed, but explored. To hate one system over another one is also flawed, because it doesn't produce data and forces hypothesis testing without consequentially following conclusions. Economy is too complex for a man to design. It shouldn't be put into a canvas of restricted operations, but circuits would need to be developed locally. If we empower small communities and allow changes to be made quicker with less bureaucracy, this seemingly grand introduction of chaos leads to emergence of a larger stability of the whole. We are soo far away from that man.. | | |
| ▲ | Febra33 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No one's saying that you should take an absolute standpoint. I'm just asking, what's wrong with China since you made that comment as if China is bad for some reason. |
| |
| ▲ | echelon 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It varies on a company to company basis. BOOX, for instance, are notorious GPL violators. There's also significant alpha in releasing open weights models. You get to slow down the market leaders to make sure they don't have runaway success. It reduces moats, slows funding, creates a wealth of competition, reduces margin. It's a really smart move if you want to make sure there's a future where you can compete with Google, OpenAI, etc. There's even a chance it makes those companies bleed a little. The value chain moves to differently shaped companies (tools, infra) leaving space for consumer and product to not necessarily be won by the "labs" companies. | | |
| ▲ | ALLTaken 6 days ago | parent [-] | | If you look at releasing "everything" from the perspective of a quant and purely so, then the objective to dominate a metric relevant to the quant is obviously the motive. But it's impossible to prove and a very strong assumption with little to no data. If DeepSeek's parent company traded on the data and release of DeepSeek with quant models that target affected firms with shorts before release, then that's a whole new level of WOW and honestly great funds do that. But this is a too big and bold of a move to underpin motive. But believing a man could achieve such a feat alone is inspiring to be frank. |
|
| |
| ▲ | refulgentis 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I love open source and the general vibe of good vibes you're bringing, but...this isn't SOTA, or close, even on the papers own terms. (i.e. excluding models released the last 6 months, including their own, which is a strange, yet understandable, choice given the results they report) Quickest way to show this: - Table 2, top of page 7 - Gemma 2 27B, 0 interventions, has 94.1/56.6/60.2 - Gemma 2 27B, with all their interventions, has 86/64/69. - Gemma 2 27B, with all their interventions, sampled 32 times, is at 90.4/67.2/70.3. - Gemma 2 27B came out in...June 2024. :/ Quick heuristics employed here: - What models did they compare against? (this isn't strictly an issue, the big screaming tell is "What models did they compare against compared to their last N papers?" - How quickly does the paper have to move towards N samples, and how big does N get before they're happy enough to conclude? (32). How much does that improve performance on their chosen metric? (1.8%) | | |
| ▲ | ALLTaken 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Good vibes, I mean yeah, we need more breakthroughs and AI isn't here to take our jobs if WE can own the AI too and not just a super-corperation. I think what we are all really excited about having finally AI at home and being unchained and freed from a central SaaS controlling all the AI is ever going to tell you. So, 6-7y ago google had these AI Chats internally and never intended to release it, a friendly googler told me. Then ChatGPT came along and locked you into their SaaS. That was fantastic in the beginning, but the more you used the AI, the more you felt helpless, swound by anyone who may have access to an AI at OpenAI that is unfiltered and uses the full power of the model. Then came the jailbreak and accounts being banned for using it. Then came the freedom by LLAMA and DeepSeek and waves of otheres. It rolled into your laptop real quick and this freedom is priceless! Something we should be really thankful for that it happened and support more OSS. Google and Facebook would never share their trove of data with us ever and very few people have enough storage and compute to even attempt to replicate them. But their Data Dominance doesn't protect them anymore. Once the models became intelligent enough to slurp up large chunks of the web, they became a better search, a better teacher and a better experience than sponsored ads, with ads with internal google/bing products listed up, then SEO websites and somewhere hidden what we really were looking for. Or often.. just being deleted for copyright and other reasons. |
|
|