Yes, and no. Yes in that they’ve released the research papers, pretrained parameters or weights of the model itself, but the training data or other vital components. Which is more than I can say for “OpenAI.” But no in that it doesn’t include training data or other critical components. Luckily, they’ve shown how they did it which makes it easy for anyone else to reverse engineer the process. That’s what Altman is afraid of.
Comment on Flailing OpenAI Calls for Ban on Chinese AI
uranibaba@lemmy.world 5 weeks agoIsn’t DeepSeek open source? Is there a need to reverse engineer it?
tonytins@pawb.social 5 weeks ago
cyd@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
They released the major components of their training and interference infrastructure code a couple weeks ago.
Dran_Arcana@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
“Open source” in ML is a really bad description for what it is. “Free binary with a bit of metadata” would be more accurate. The code used to create deepseek is not open source, nor is the training datasets. 99% of “open source” models are this way. The only interesting part of the open sourcing is the architecture used to run the models, as it lends a lot of insight into the training process, and allows for derivatives via post-training
cyd@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Deepseek actually released a bunch of their infrastructure code, including the infamous tricks for making training and interference more efficient, a couple of weeks ago.
Naevermix@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
It certainly is a lot more open source than OpenAI, that’s for sure.