Re:OpenAI says it has evidence China's DeepSeek used its mod...
by fumeux_fume on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @01:19PM
(#42868912)
I think the point is that if R1 isn't possible without access to OpenAI (at low, subsidized costs) then this isn't really a breakthrough as much as a hack to clone an existing model.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:OpenAI says it has evidence China's DeepSeek used its mod...
by tensor on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @01:21PM
(#42868959)
The training techniques are a breakthrough no matter what data is used. It's not up for debate, it's an empirical question with a concrete answer. They can and did train orders of magnitude faster.
Re:OpenAI says it has evidence China's DeepSeek used its mod...
by blast on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @01:42PM
(#42869252)
Not arguing with your point about training efficiency, but the degree to which R1 is a technical breakthrough changes if they were calling an outside API to get the answers, no?
It seems like the difference between someone doing a better writeup of (say) Wiles' proof vs. proving Fermat's Last Theorem independently.
Re:OpenAI says it has evidence China's DeepSeek used its mod...
by pests on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @03:10PM
(#42870476)
That outside API used to be humans, doing the work manually. Now we have ways to speed that up.
Re:OpenAI says it has evidence China's DeepSeek used its mod...
by bbor on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @01:23PM
(#42868988)
R1 is--as far as we know from good ol' ClosedAI--far more efficient. Even if it were a "clone", A) that would be a terribly impressive achievement on its own that Anthropic and Google would be mighty jealous of, and B) it's at the very least a distillation of O1's reasoning capabilities into a more svelte form.