Comment on Oracle made a $300 billion bet on OpenAI. It's paying the price.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days agoBullshit, the dataset is massive, and a dataset may include bias. You would always want to use a dataset that fir your needs.
Comment on Oracle made a $300 billion bet on OpenAI. It's paying the price.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days agoBullshit, the dataset is massive, and a dataset may include bias. You would always want to use a dataset that fir your needs.
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
no,
your changing the definition of open source software. which has been around a lot longer than AI has.
source code is what defines open source.
what deepseek has is open weights. they publish the results of their learning only. not the source that produced it.
Jrockwar@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Still debatable, the weights are the code. That’s a bit like saying “X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn’t include the proofs that they’re derived from”.
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
what has been published by deep seek is the music, not the software that made the music.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
In the same way as an Excel spreadsheet containing a crosstab of analytics results is “the code.”
It’s processed input for a visualization/playback mechanism, not source code.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 2 days ago
And LLM is simply such a bad example for Open Source in general. They couldn‘t have chosen a worse example to make their point. That‘s what’s frustrates me.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days ago
techwireasia.com/…/china-open-source-ai-models-gl…
I’ve read similar claims in other articles, I have no idea why they would call it open source if it’s not?
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
can you show me the actual source code?
the human readable code, not the weights.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The (claimed) source:
github.com/deepseek-ai
Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I’m NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these “weights” is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.
I apologize.