OpenAI Furious DeepSeek Might Have Stolen All the Data OpenAI Stole from Us

Re:OpenAI Furious DeepSeek Might Have Stolen All the Data Op... by hn_throwaway_99 on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @12:16PM (#42867941)

But you should also be very wary of these kind of anecdotes, and this thread highlights exactly why. That commenter says in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42866350) that the token limitation that he is complaining about has actually nothing to do with DeepSeek's model or their API, but is a consequence of an artificial limit that Kagi imposes. In other words, his conclusion about DeepSeek is completely unwarranted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OpenAI Furious DeepSeek Might Have Stolen All the Data Op... by throwup238 on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @12:26PM (#42868088)

It mashed the header and C++ file together, which is egregiously bad in the context of QT. This isn’t a new library, it’s been around for almost thirty years. Max token sizes have nothing to do with that.

I invite anyone to post a chat transcript showing a successful run of R1 against this prompt (and please tell me which API/service it came from so I can go use it too!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:OpenAI Furious DeepSeek Might Have Stolen All the Data Op... by goosejuice on Thursday January 30, 2025 @10:18AM (#42878536)

I wasn't suggesting using the anecdotes of others to make a decision.

I'm talking about individuals and organizations making a decision on whether or not to use a model based on their own testing. That's what ultimately matters here.

[ Parent | on HN ]