undefined | Better HN

0 pointswrasee1y ago0 comments

Yes, but in science you reference your work and credit those who came before you.

Edit: I am not defending OpenAI and we are all enjoying the irony here. But it puts into perspective some of the wilder claims circulating that DeekSeek was able to somehow complete with OpenAI for only $5M, as if on a level playing field.

0 comments

tedivm1y ago

OpenAI has been hiding their datasets, and certainly haven't credited me for the data they stole from my website and github repositories. If OpenAI doesn't think they should give attribution to the data they used, it seems weird to require that of others.

Edit: Responding to your edit, Deepseek only claimed that the final training run was $5m, not that the whole process caught that (they even call this out). I think it's important to acknowledge that, even if they did get some training data from OpenAI, this is a remarkable achievement.

wraseeOP1y ago

It is a remarkable achievement. But if “some training data from OpenAI” turns out to essentially be a wholesale distillation of their entire model (along with Llama etc) I do think that somewhat dampens the spirit of it.

We don’t know that of course. OpenAI claim to have some evidence and I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

There’s also a substantial difference between training of the entire internet and one that very specifically targets your competitor's products (or any specific work directly).

ambicapter1y ago

Only weird if you think what OpenAI did should be the norm.

wraseeOP1y ago

Right. I think many here are enjoying the Schadenfreude against OpenAI, but that hardly makes it right. It just makes it a race to the bottom.

bugglebeetle1y ago

Like all those papers with their long lists of citations OpenAI has been releasing?

dkjaudyeqooe1y ago

That's only in academia. The same thing happens in commerce, only there is no (official) credit given.

Filligree1y ago

That's $5M for the final training run. Which is an improvement to be sure, but it doesn't include the other training runs -- prototypes, failed runs and so forth.

coliveira1y ago

It is OpenAI that discredits themselves when they say that each new model is the result of hundreds of USD millions in training. They throw this around as it is a big advantage of their models.

nicce1y ago

And the cost is based on the imaginary currency that Microsoft has given for them as Azure computing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tedivm1y ago

wraseeOP1y ago

We don’t know that of course. OpenAI claim to have some evidence and I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

There’s also a substantial difference between training of the entire internet and one that very specifically targets your competitor's products (or any specific work directly).

ambicapter1y ago

Only weird if you think what OpenAI did should be the norm.

wraseeOP1y ago

Right. I think many here are enjoying the Schadenfreude against OpenAI, but that hardly makes it right. It just makes it a race to the bottom.

bugglebeetle1y ago

Like all those papers with their long lists of citations OpenAI has been releasing?

dkjaudyeqooe1y ago

That's only in academia. The same thing happens in commerce, only there is no (official) credit given.

Filligree1y ago

That's $5M for the final training run. Which is an improvement to be sure, but it doesn't include the other training runs -- prototypes, failed runs and so forth.

coliveira1y ago

It is OpenAI that discredits themselves when they say that each new model is the result of hundreds of USD millions in training. They throw this around as it is a big advantage of their models.

nicce1y ago

And the cost is based on the imaginary currency that Microsoft has given for them as Azure computing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse