So the same people who have no problem about using other people's copyrighted work, are now crying when the Chinese do the same to them? Find me a nano-scale violin so I can play a really sad song.
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
121 points (91.7% liked)
Technology
35482 readers
321 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's obviously a cello.
Maybe a cello if it was human grade. But that’s tartigrade.
Pedant time: That's microscale not nanoscale.
You can shoot me now, it's deserved.
Can you put a liuqin in there?
Planck could not scale small enough.
You more elegantly said what I came to say.
Bruh, these guys trained their own AI on so called "puplicly available" content. Except it was, and still is, completely without consent from, or compensation to said artists/bloggers/creators etc.. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house 🤌
load more comments
(1 replies)
Stealing from thieves is not theft
Yes it is. Although I personally have far less moral objections to it.
To elaborate:
OpenAI scraped data without permission, and then makes money from it.
Deepseek then used that data (even paid openai for it), trained a model on that data, and then releases that model for anyone to use.
While it's still making use of "stolen data" (that's a whole semantics discussion I won't get into right now), I find it far more noble than the former.
Came to say something similar. Like I give a fuck that OpenAI's model/tech/whatever was "stolen" by Deepseek. Fuck that piece of shit Sam Altman.
"Recieving stolen goods" is prosecutable.
It's a lesser crime than the original theft though.
Oh are we supposed to care about substantial evidence of theft now? Because there’s a few artists, writers, and other creatives that would like to have a word with you…
Open AI stole all of our data to train their model. If this is true, no sympathy.
That is what I mean, it's a difference between an AI with robbed content in its knowledge/lenguage base and an AI assistant which only search iformation in the web to answer, linking to the corresponding pages. Way more intelligent and ethic use of an AI.
Womp womp. I'm sure openAI asked for permission from the creators for all its training data, right? Thief complains about someone else stealing their stolen goods, more at 11.
so he's just admitting that deepseek did a better job than openai but for a fraction of the price? it only gets better.
It's funny that they did all that and open-sourced it too. Like some kid accusing another to copy their homeworks while the other kid did significantly better and also offered to share.
Cry me a fucking river, David.
When you can't win, accuse them of cheating.
But, but they committed the copyright infringement first. It's theirs. That's totally unfair. What are tech bros going to do? Admit they are grossly over valued? They've already spent the billions.
Here's the thing... It was a bubble because you can't wall off the entire concept of AI. This revelation was just an acceleration displaying what should've been obvious.
There are many many open models available for people to fuck around with. I have in a homelab setting, just to keep abreast of what is going on, get a general idea how it works and what its capable of.
What most normie followers of AI don't seem to understand is, whether you're doing LLM or machine learning object detection or something, you can get open software that is "good enough" and run it locally. If you have a raspberry pi you can run some of this stuff, and it will be slow, but acceptable for many use cases.
So the concept that only OpenAI would ever hold the keys and should therefore have massive valuation in perpetuity, that is just laughable. This Chinese company just highlighted that you can bruteforce train more optimized models on garbage-tier hardware.
Yes, AI arrived to stay, that is fact, also soon there will be a unified global AI (see Stargat Project) which will make obsolet all other LLM. A $500 Billon project. The only thing we can do is to use it in the most intelligent way, avoiding it will be impossible.
Your point OpenAI? Weren't you part of the group saying training AI wasn't copyright infringement? Not so happy when it's your shit being copied? Huh. Weird.
The only concern is how much the cost of training the model changes if it got a significant kickstart from previous, very-expensive training. I was interested because it was said to be comparable for a fraction of the cost. "Open"AI can suck sand.
OpenAI's mission statement is also in their name. The fact that they have a proprietary product that is not open source is criminal and should be sued out of existence. They are now just like the Sun Micro after Apache was made open sourced; irrelevant they just haven't gotten the memo yet. No company can compete against the whole world.
i agree FOSS is the way to go, and that OpenAI has a lot to answer for… but FOSS is not the only way to interpret “open”
the “open” was never intended as open source - it was open access. the idea was that anyone should have access to build things using AI; that it shouldn’t be for only megacorps who had the pockets to train… which they have, and still are doing
they also originally intended that all their research and patents would be open, which i believe they’re still doing
FUD, just to distract from the crushing multibillion dollar defeat they’ve just been dealt. First stage of grief: denial. Second: anger. Third: bargaining. We’re somewhere between 2 and 3 right now.
Nope, it's definitely true, but sensationalism. Almost all models are trained using gpt
Me pretending to care about David Sacks claim:
Yes, so what?
https://stratechery.com/2025/deepseek-faq/
Who the fuck cares? They're all doing this.
Copycat gets copycatted.
I couldn't give less of a fuck.
If there's one thing we know about American AI companies it's that they have a spotless record when it comes to data ethics. Never touched unauthorized data. Swear! Not even once. Of course not.
I think chatgpt is more self aware than OpenAI is.
Yeah, and? WTF are you chuckle fucks gonna do about it? Whine and complain without a hint of irony? Because that's all this is. Because there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it, and you hate that. Not to mention the hit to your nearly bottomless wallets. Cry more emo kid, your suffering sustains me.
It's only ok when we do it, cause we're the good guys!
Training is transformative use. Same reason I don't care which DVDs they show the draw-anything robot.
If I somehow stole ChatGPT's weights and pruned them to one-tenth their size, that'd be on-par with leaking the source code to a game. Any support would be yo-ho-ho vigilante justice kinds of support.
But I just point my chatbot at your chatbot, and mine winds up better and smaller... tough shit.
They're obviously trying so hard for regulatory capture in the states it's embarrassing.
Well you can't run openai's models yourself so pretty sure deepseek would've had to pay for API access. How is that stealing again?
They’re eating each other.
Exactly. This is the end. The companies eat each other while we suffer.
So what? It's absolutely true and makes absolutely no difference to anyone
Whoop de doo
Good luck suing them
I still prefer Andisearch over all others, it was rhe first AI search long before all other were released, with own LLM not a copy from others.
load more comments
(13 replies)
view more: next ›