Submitted 10 months ago by helloworld7@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.sunrisegeek.com/post/microsoft-bans-employees-from-using-deepseek-app
Thing about deepseek is you can get it from many providers (including US hosts, or various other nationalities). Microsoft even has their own anti-CCP finetune, MIT licensed: huggingface.co/microsoft/MAI-DS-R1
…Banning the app is reasonable, and honestly a tiny inconvenience for anyone who needs it.
I literally run deepseek r1 on my laptop via ollama, and many other models, nothing gets sent to anybody. Granted, it’s the smaller 7b parameter model, but still plenty good.
Microsoft could easily host the full model on their infrastructure if they needed it.
True, though there’s a big output difference between the 7B distil (or even 32B/70B) and the full model.
And Microsoft does host R1 already, heh. Again, this headline is a big nothingburger.
Also (random aside here), you should consider switching from ollama. They’re making some FOSS unfriendly moves, and depending on your hardware, better backends could host 14B models at longer context, and similar or better speeds.
AI has unreliable results for all but morons who can’t tell the difference due to lacking basic reading comprehension skills.
The fact that its essays and other output are considered at all “good” is an indicator of how poor our education system really is. Most are objectively bad.
That said, I’m far more comfortable with China getting my data from it than the USA. But there’s zero reason for me to use it in the first place.
Correct me if I’m wrong here but a company can’t dictate what you do on your own time on your own hardware, so I assume this simply affects work computers. Assuming thats the case I don’t really see a problem here. I’ve never been able to download any applications at all on any work computer I’ve ever used short of apps the company itself uses.
Seems completely understandable to me to bar employees from using a competing service especially if there are genuine security concerns.
Absolutely. Companies have every right to control what tools are authorized to use on their hardware, and what touches their data or users data. It could be as complex as security or as simple as don’t use a competing service, but it all makes sense. Don’t tell me how use my stuff and I won’t tell you how to use yours.
If it’s BYOD then that’s another multiple layers of cans of worms not worth getting into.
Ever heard about software devs not being able to work on personal projects because all the code they produce, even off the clock is owned by their employer?
Hasn’t been true for my past two jobs at least (US based), what I do outside of company premises / my own hardware and my own time is mine. They only own what was done on company’s dime. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but that’s not my experience so far, and I’m not sure if would be legal.
No, that’s a dystopian scenario.
I mean if It’s only for business machines I get it. If you want a proper silo where your ip and isn’t going to be stolen by an LLM, any organization should run an in house self hosted model that is trained on their own data and doesn’t pass data back to the upstream. That just makes sense. Especially if it just passes your work to your competitors.
I mean if we ever properly gleam information from LLMs, it’ll be the biggest source of leaks and whistleblowing ever created from video games to National security. Don’t use cloud hosted llms if you want privacy and security.
Funny how every time anyone talks about replacing capitalism everybody trots out the examples of innovation and competition as things we would lose. Meanwhile capitalists are over here doing their level best to sabotage innovation and buy or legislate their way out of competition so they can remain complacent in their dominant market position. ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin when they’re actively undermining the purported benefits of their wanton exploitation and delivering nothing but stagnation and enshittification.
Yeah the whole “capitalism fuels innovation” thing is dead. Anyone that still believes this is braindead. It optimizes towards killing competition by any means, not innovating.
(Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism)
Because people praising capitalism understand it just as badly as people blaming it for all problems, usually.
People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). There’s a common Soviet joke about Sahara, communism and deficits of sand. Or these people build a country which is “not capitalist” because there are no two corporations on its territory, only one, which is also the government, but its interactions with the rest of the world are like corporate b2b and their interactions with their citizens are like corporate cities in China. Or both. Or they don’t build anything and don’t react to grim reality, because it’s more pleasant to whine about climate change when their chances at good future are being murdered much faster in the political and social field.
People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. It’s voluntary - they intentionally create levers which mafias in control of governments use to introduce violent pressure as normal part of the system, thus slowly people owning huge chunks of economies are also members of ruling clans.
That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. Both imply that humans act altruistically or in their own best interest in the framework of assumed moral borders. Except those borders don’t exist. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed, similarly governments and people and ideologies and your friends lie to you more often than they say truth. You can’t assume if you want to devise something with a chance to work.
(Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism)
I’m not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you.
People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended).
…what?
What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you’re making about me criticizing capitalism means I ‘blame [it] for everything’, this tirade you’ve launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation.
People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies.
Please allow me to reiterate: …what?
Capitalists didn’t build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this… vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism’s chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It’s the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they’re lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps.
That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics.
I’m going to go ahead an assume that ‘the problem’ has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to ‘ape (or any other animal’s) power dynamics’ than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want.
Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed
So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how:
LOL no.
Also, do you remember when I said this?
‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin
You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires?’
Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Ignoring the content of the article for a second. Did they not proofread this at all? There are so many spelling, grammar, and sentence fragment mistakes. I would joke that it was written by AI, but it has too many mistakes for even that to be the case.
kevin2107@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Atleast we know its by humans