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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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