DeepSeek's models are indeed open weight. Why do you feel that pointing this out would be considered slander?

culi 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think they were reading GP's comment as a correction. Like "not open-source, just open weight". I'm not sure if their reading was accurate but I enjoyed their high effort comment nonetheless

	▲	alecco 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		X is full of "open weights!" corrections as a dog whistle by the anti-China crowd. And they are right about models from the Chinese Big Tech, but completely wrong about DeepSeek.

▲

alecco 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>> Truly open source coming from China.

> Open weight!

They clearly were implying it's not open source.

	▲	patshead a day ago \| parent [-]
		Correct. We have open-weight models from OpenAI, Facebook, Mistral, DeepSeek, Z.ai, MiniMax, and all sorts of other companies. Most of them have fantastic and open licensing terms. If we can't build the weights, then we don't have the source. I'm not entirely sure what an open-source model would even look like, but I am confident that these binary blobs that we are loading into llama.cpp and vllm aren't the equivalent of source code. We have absolutely no idea what sort of data went into them. This is fine. It isn't slanderous. It is what we have, and it is awesome. Just because it is awesome doesn't make it open source.